European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords & Ping Pong (Hansard)
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I regret the Government’s decision to reject all the amendments, in particular the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just spoken to and the amendments that my noble friends moved.

I am sorry that in another place the Minister, when addressing the EU citizens amendment, failed to make any arguments at all. Indeed, so devoid of them was he that he resorted to a whole load of canards and non sequiturs. I could go through them at length, if I thought the Government were in any way moved by arguments on this, but it is clear to me that they are not. Sadly, and without any coherent reason at all, they have rejected an amendment which would have improved the Bill, alleviated the severe anxieties of EU citizens who are currently being refused documentary proof of their right to settled status, and ensured that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary kept the promises they made to EU citizens during the 2016 referendum campaign.

Our amendment did not seek to interfere with any rights under the settled status scheme, nor did it do anything to thwart or delay Brexit. The proposals were not radical: the provision of documentary evidence of status is exactly the system that exists for non-EU holders of indefinite leave to remain. Our proposal for a declaratory system was simply aimed at preventing the Government and EU citizens becoming embroiled in a bureaucratic quagmire after June 2021.

As a result of the Commons’ failure to heed these modest requests, the conditions have been created for a great injustice to be visited on tens, perhaps even hundreds, of thousands of EU citizens. Millions of EU citizens will continue to face deep anxiety about their status as a result of the inexplicable decision to refuse to provide them with documentary proof. This is not an arcane debating point. This decision will have a real impact on people’s lives. Every member of the Government and every one of its supporters should, frankly, be ashamed that they are party to a casual abandonment of a solemn undertaking made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to EU citizens during the course of the referendum. I am sorry that it has been abandoned so casually.

EU citizens in this country—and UK citizens in the EU, who are concerned about how the UK’s approach at home will impact their position in the EU—can be assured that, despite the set-back today, we will not give up the fight for good sense on this matter to prevail. Although our amendment has not gone through today, we will seek further legislative opportunities to ensure that it does so in future.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to say a word or two about the two amendments in which I had an interest. I am sorry that my voice is not quite up to it, but it is better than it was yesterday.

I am very glad that the situation now is that Parliament can act and get on with what is required. Clause 26 is the one I am interested in. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, moved an amendment to take out the provision which required a selection of courts to be made in a statutory instrument. I had understood that the Prime Minister had said that he wanted all courts to be able to deal with this matter in some way. By a majority of around 100, those in the House of Commons preferred that situation to what he said—that must be a matter of some interest. So far as I am concerned, I was extremely anxious to uphold what the Prime Minister said in his answer during the election.

Those in the Commons do not say that my amendment is unsuitable, but that it

“does not deal appropriately with the issue of domestic courts departing from the case law”.

But they do not say that their own provision is necessarily suitable either. I am sure that I, and all my noble and learned friends who spoke on these amendments, would be very willing to offer any help that may be required when it comes to promoting this statutory instrument.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

I wonder if I might be allowed to follow the noble and learned Lord, since we are discussing the amendments to Clause 26. He made such a bold and ingenious attempt to provide the Government with a reasonable platform on which they could deal with this problem.

I am faced with words from the House of Commons that my amendment would not leave an appropriate means of dealing with

“the issue of domestic courts departing from the case law of the European Court after IP completion day”—

but nor does the Bill as it stands. It relies on the use of a regulation-making power, under which any or all courts could be included, including lower courts which do not have the capacity to bind other courts and therefore can make many inconsistent decisions. It still leaves the Government with the power to, effectively, impose a different, unspecified test.

This is a very unsatisfactory situation, but the best thing that the Government can now do, since they have failed to accept either my amendment or that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is think very carefully before proceeding, because there is already sufficient statutory provision in place in the 2018 withdrawal Act, under which the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justiciary can do the job of deciding to depart from European case law. Should the Government wish to extend that to some other courts, perhaps to appeal courts, they will probably find sympathy and support in the House, but should they try to bring forward proposals by way of regulations of the kind that were widely discussed by very experienced colleagues around the House, they will meet resistance at that stage.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I am going to make a rather cynical contribution to the debate. The debate has brought out very clearly the difference between accountability and a mandate. I am not in favour of the Government’s hands being tied by Parliament in these negotiations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that it is for the Government to conduct these negotiations, not for Parliament. We will have the opportunity to comment and to give our views, and we should. We certainly should not be cowed from doing that.

However, I will quote a recent example that I really think establishes this point. The Government unexpectedly, before the election, got an agreement with the European Union that the European Union always said that it would not make. How did they get it? They did it by making a concession on the Irish Sea that they would never have got through Parliament. They made a concession which they had said they would not make—but they found it necessary to do it, and when they had done it, Parliament and the electorate came to the conclusion that it was the right thing to have done. If Parliament had been able to control what the Government were able to do, the Government would not have been able to make that concession.

We might be cynical about that concession—we might think it was the wrong thing to do—but it was the thing that got the agreement and that was necessary to get the agreement. Certainly, the Government will need friends in these negotiations, but they will also need flexibility, and Parliament should not seek to take away that flexibility.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I would like to point out two matters. First, in new Clause 13D(2)(b) and (c) in Amendment 28, there is the requirement that a Minister must provide

“a declaration of whether, in the Minister’s opinion, agreements can be concluded and ratified before IP completion day”,

which seems to be in the nature of a prophecy required from the Minister as a matter of compulsion, and

“the policy of Her Majesty’s Government if agreements are not concluded and ratified before IP completion day.”

Once again, that is nothing to do with saying what is happening; it is giving an opinion as to what is to happen next, which as far as I am concerned is the difference between the two.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I have sat and listened to the debate on the Bill in this House, which has been wise—and sometimes entertaining, sometimes depressing, depending on one’s view of leaving the European Union. For the past two days I have stayed quiet and reflected on what has been said. For me it has been a surreal debate at times. Last night we had a debate in which all sides of the House pleaded with the Minister to keep one single market in the United Kingdom, and the Minister could not agree that that could be guaranteed. Earlier today there was an amendment about the rule of Parliament, and taking back control of the sovereignty of Parliament and not the sovereignty of the Executive. In the previous debate the Minister said that our hands should not be tied in negotiations—but the Government are tying their own hands by putting a false deadline on the negotiations.

However, I have to stand up now, because we have moved from a surreal debate to a cruel and heartless debate. Now we are talking about children who have family in this country. They are segregated; they will have seen war and persecution; some of them may have seen their mothers raped; some will have seen things that we cannot understand. And we already have a law in this land that says that, as a guarantee and as a matter of principle, they will come here now. Clause 37 takes that away. The Minister shakes her head, but it does. Basically, it says that rules will be laid before Parliament in two months’ time. It stops the existing provision and tries to put in a new provision—and we know not what that new provision will be.

Sometimes in politics, you just do the right thing. You do a thing as a matter of principle. I see nothing at all wrong in bringing here, as fast and as safely as possible, unaccompanied children who have family in this country. It is the right thing to do practically, and it is the right thing to do in principle. I must say to the Minister that this is a political decision. It is not a legal decision; there is nothing impeding negotiations. What is more, it is the right thing to do. I do not care what the other 27 countries do. As a British citizen, I want my values to be that we accept these children as a matter of principle. If the other 27 do not wish to do that, that is about their values—but this country, and this Parliament, should stand steadfast in saying that this is the right thing to do, and we want it to happen now.

I tried to think why the Government would not just allow this to happen. Why would they want to put a two-month staging post in place? Do they not want to do it? The Minister and the Government keep telling us that they do want to do it, and that it will happen. Fine. Are they not quite sure how it will happen, so they want to change the rules and the policy? The Minister shakes her head. So why have they not shown us what the new policy will be? Why the two-month gap? What are we waiting for? If nothing is going to change, the existing provision should stand.

Are we saying that we are putting in a provision for a two-month wait and nothing will change? Yet there are children across the country who need our support and help. Or are we going to use these young, vulnerable children as a negotiating chip? What a disgraceful position for us, as a country, to get ourselves into—that we could use the most vulnerable of the vulnerable as a negotiating position to try to get the other countries to agree to do something, we know not what? There is no reason for this clause—other than the possibility that there is something, however slight it may be, that the Government wish to change. I do not believe that that is the British way, I do not believe that those are British values, and I do not believe that that is what the British public will support.

I will end with what Robin Walker said when he was a Brexit Minister in the other place. He said that this was a matter of principle. I agree: it is a matter of principle—and it is time to put principle into action and stop the fake negotiation.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I think my credentials in legislation for children are fairly long and fairly clear—or at least I hope so. Before we start to think about children in principle, it is vital to think about the provision that we seek to replace. The Clause in the 2018 Bill gives children no rights whatever. It does nothing more than require the Government to enter into negotiations with regard to those children. That is all, which is very important.

However, the question is: is Parliament entitled to tell the Executive what they must negotiate for? That is the language of the part of the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. In other words, it is said that, as a matter of principle—I will elaborate on that principle in a minute—it is not right that the Government’s hands should be restricted by Parliament before the negotiations. It is the Executive’s responsibility to do the negotiation; it is for Parliament to call the Executive to account on how they have done it.

I shall refer to this only briefly, but your Lordships will remember that in the decision of the Supreme Court in relation to Prorogation, it pointed out that the important thing was the accountability of the Executive to Parliament. That makes an important distinction between the Executive and Parliament, because the Executive have the executive function, and then Parliament has the right to call them to account for the way in which they have carried it out.

The provision in question—Clause 17 in the 2018 Bill—is precisely that. It is an instruction to the Executive to open negotiations in a certain way. I understand from what we have heard already that the Executive have entered into such negotiations. However, the point made in the letter is a general one, of the kind I have just mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I cannot believe we are here again. It is like déjà vu, or a bad dream. I thought we had put this issue to bed. It took a long time previously and I have not forgotten how hard NGOs and people on this side of the House—and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—had to work to make Dublin III work for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who had family here. It was not an easy legal trip but, through JRs and so on, we got it to work eventually, and the thought that the system might be dismantled is too depressing for words.

It seems that Conservative Governments pass up no opportunity to try to prevent us abiding by our legal duty to uphold the rights of the child. I fear that views sometimes articulated by the right-wing press make some Members on the government Benches think they are being taken for a ride. One such view is that these children are sent here as a way to cleave open the system, so that the rest of the family may follow. Can they produce the evidence to back that up? No, because there is none. Children are more likely to stay quiet about where their family is because they fear that retribution might be visited upon them.

Another such view, referred to by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, is that allowing family reunification creates a pull factor that will encourage others to make the trip. I suggest that anyone who truly holds that view visits some of the refugee camps and speaks to people there. I am sure that listening to their human stories—such as that of Adam, whom I know well—will encourage them to think differently. Adam is not his real name. He fled north Darfur at the age of three with his family. He was orphaned but made it to a refugee camp where he lived a hand-to-mouth existence until the age of 14, in constant fear that the Janjaweed militias would one day succeed in taking him away. There was no school and no hope, just fear. At the age of 14 he took the decision to leave to try to make his way to Europe because the risk was worth it. He was driven to take the risk by desperation. His is just one story. There are many more children like Adam who desperately need our compassion and our kindness but, most of all, our commitment to international rules of law that protect the best interests of the child and, in particular, to the continuation of the Dublin III regulation once we have left the EU for good.

Removing our commitment to Dublin III from the Bill with a promise to make good later is not good enough. These children, and in particular their advocates, need to know that a system that has finally been made to work will not be dismantled. Starting from scratch to set up another system that works legally will mean that time will be lost, and lost time means that lives will be damaged. I think the Government will agree that there will be a gap in legislation and they cannot know how long it will be. Please let us leave things be.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

The Dublin III arrangements will continue until the end of this year. The Government’s purpose is to make arrangements that will take effect immediately after that. That is what this is about. It is not about taking anything away. It is about construction after the end of this year, assuming that—I am assuming what was said in the last debate—still stands.

[Baroness Sheehan]

I thank the noble and learned Lord. The Government say that they will, but the question is when. There is no guarantee that there will not be a gap through which—

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

There is no guarantee that anything is going to happen particularly, but Dublin III is in and the Government have expressed their intention to replace it with an arrangement that applies to children here who have family in Europe and to children in Europe who have family here.

[Baroness Sheehan]

If, as the noble and learned Lord said, nothing is going to change, let us leave things be.

Brexit

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry that my voice is not as I would like it to be today. My intention is simply to talk about the law as it is just now. My understanding is that unless we have a deal approved before 31 October, we will go out of the European Union without a deal. It is said that there is an answer to that in statute. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I know a good deal about that, and I want to draw attention to a provision in the Benn Act which I think is important. I refer to Section 1(4):

“The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020”.


Why? What is this wanted for? It is,

“in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks”.

That is the purpose for which the extension is being sought. Is there any truth in that as a purpose? I think not. I see no likelihood that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is going to debate and pass a Bill to implement Mrs May’s agreement. Therefore, what the Prime Minister is being asked to do is to send a letter for a purpose which we all know is incorrect. I must say that I am finding it very difficult to understand how we can do that.

This point was fully discussed in this House during the proceedings on the Benn Bill. I did not know anything about the history of this provision and I was amazed, when I read the text of the Bill at Second Reading, that this was in it. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will remember that; others beside him had the same feeling. I was astonished. Then, on the Friday morning, my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean sought to get rid of that provision, but by a very large majority this House kept it in. That is the position and I would certainly like to know what we can do in the light of it, because otherwise, the law is in our statute book.

I should like to mention briefly one other point. In the decision of the Supreme Court, the important point was that Parliament has the responsibility, duty and power to call the Executive to account. You cannot easily call yourself to account and therefore, that makes a very important constitutional distinction between the area of operation of Ministers of the Crown and Parliament. That is an important observation in relation to certain of the proceedings which have taken place up until now.

Brexit

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow a fellow Scot, although I will deal with a rather different matter.

We are dealing with the proposals in Article 50 for withdrawal from the European Union. It is important to note that, once a country such as ours has given such notice, it is the duty of the Union—I want to read the exact words—to,

“negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”.

In other words, the withdrawal agreement has nothing whatever to do with the future relationship, except that it be in the light of that future relationship. That is the agreement we have to reach, and it is that agreement and that agreement only that defines the date on which we leave the European Union. There is no requirement to agree any arrangement about future relationships. That is a framework, not an agreement—a framework which is set up at that time. Therefore, it is extremely important to realise that, in order to satisfy the rules of the European Union set out in Article 50, we are not required to agree the future relationships. Those are for the future. The immediate matter is to agree the terms on which we withdraw. One term which has been negotiated so far, and which I hope will continue, is that there will be an implementation period in which the rules remain substantially the same.

Therefore, the question of the withdrawal agreement is quite simple. It deals with matters and obligations that arise at the withdrawal date, and that date—the one on which the withdrawal agreement is agreed—is the date for leaving the European Union. Also, Article 50 does not mention anything about crashing out or any expression of that sort if it is not possible to reach an agreement two years after the original notice; it just says that that is what will happen.

In my submission, it is absolutely essential that future relationships on the one hand and the obligations of withdrawal on the other are distinct and separated out from one another. Otherwise, we have a terrific burden of trying to agree the future relationships at this stage, when Article 50 clearly contemplates that that is a distinct matter and does not require agreement for now. I am hoping to be well under the six minutes, because that is what I have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Before my noble friend sits down, I think I made a speech earlier on. I just wonder whether he has any comment on it.

[Lord Callanan]

There were 51 noble Lords who spoke in the debate. I made an extensive set of notes and endeavoured to respond to as many of the points as possible. I will look again at my notes on the speech from the noble and learned Lord and reply to him in writing. I apologise for missing him out.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 6th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jones of Birmingham]

So tolerant of democracy.

I support the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for one reason only: there is not a small business woman or small business man in this land who has not had it up to here with this place and the other place. They just want everybody to get on with it and give the businesses of the land—which generate the profit, pay the tax and build the schools and hospitals—the chance to get on and make money, employ people and pay tax. They hold us all in very high disregard at the moment—all of us. The political class has let down this country and business, and that is not a partisan point. We should all, of every party in both places, look into our souls about what we have done to this country in so many ways. If these people, who hold us in such high disregard, thought we spent a Friday afternoon accepting the fact that we just knocked through on the nod something factually inaccurate, they would think we were even worse than they do right now.

I thought the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was excellent. The chance of coming together and healing—he used that word, and I thought it was excellent—has a lot of merit in it, but we surely cannot knowingly vote for something that is factually wrong. On that basis I support the amendment—I do not think it would hold up anything on Monday—but after this debacle is over we ought to go from this place and just start trying to respect the optics: the businesses, the businesswomen and businessmen, the good people of this country, have had enough of us. If we do not start communicating with them as to why we are on their side, God help us.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

This amendment proposing to delete what is in the Bill strikes me as rather unnecessary, apart from the fact that we have difficulty with time. In my view, the amendment proposed by Mr Stephen Kinnock—a distinguished member of a distinguished family—was perfectly in order. The fact that, though the procedures of the House of Commons, it went into the Bill and is in the Bill we read for a second time, passed in Committee and are now considering on Report strikes me as perfectly in order. It makes the important distinction, which I tried to make yesterday, between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.

It has always seemed to me that the Irish backstop has the character of a future relationship. What is objected to is the fact that it is said to be permanent and so on. That is part of the future relationship, and therefore I have always felt that the backstop itself is not an objection to the withdrawal agreement as such. There may be other objections but, so far as the backstop is concerned, the aspect of it to which objection has been taken is as part of the future relationship. I would therefore welcome the idea of the House of Commons having a discussion separating out these two, which the Kinnock amendment does with complete accuracy. I do not for a minute believe that it does not make sense; it is perfectly readable and understandable, even for lawyers. In my view, therefore, this should stay in.

My noble friend says he expected the Government to object to it. The Government are not for the whole of this Bill. The whole thing is a Private Member’s Bill by a group that was not part of the Government as such. It may have included Members who were previously in the Government, but at any rate it is not a government Bill. The Government therefore do not care for it at all, so I do not know why they should have to propose an amendment to part of it. It is perfectly right that they had not done so. I understand they have been advised that it is meaningless. I do not agree with that, and I do not think anybody who reads it will think it is meaningless; it is perfectly clear what is wanted. It is the basis on which an extension is asked for.

According to the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, no conditions are attached. However, if you apply for an extension the European Union will require a reason—which seems to be common sense—and, if you give a reason, good faith suggests that that is the reason, and therefore it promotes the likelihood that something may suddenly emerge which distinguishes between the political formulation and the withdrawal agreement, which is the vital thing to get through in time.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 5th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I did not realise that we were coming near to winding up. I was asking what the proper time to end was: I wanted to speak near the end so that I would hear the wisdom of others rather than my own.

I want to talk a bit about the history of this matter in the House of Commons and then say a word or two about the Bill. Obviously, the question arose immediately after the referendum of whether the result should be implemented. The referendum itself did not contain, as the Supreme Court pointed out, any mechanism for implementing the result; therefore, it was for Parliament to find a way of implementing the result. The Prime Minister of the day, who took over from David Cameron, undertook to implement the result of the referendum and set about doing so, indicating principles by which she would be guided, sometimes called red lines. I want to mention one aspect of that. The customs union and the single market were particularly important, but as I understand the present rules of the single market and the customs union, they forbid a member state making contracts for trade with others. Therefore, part of the desire in the referendum was to open up trade for the United Kingdom to other jurisdictions. Therefore some modification, but only some, to the customs union and the single market was necessary.

I want to particularly mention Northern Ireland, because I believe that to be fundamental: as far as I am concerned it is the most important problem. As far as I can see, and I have tried to think about it as much as I could, it can be solved properly only by having the same basic rules on both sides of the border. If not, there is bound to be a hard border and I think I am right in saying that the European Union rules require that the boundaries of the European Union are set by hard borders. It therefore seems that if we are to leave without a deal there is bound to be a hard border in Northern Ireland. That would be a disaster, because the arrangements there are extremely tender, very important and vital to securing the peace of Northern Ireland. So far as I am concerned, that is a vital point; it has been from the beginning and remains so.

Eventually Mrs May managed to get an agreement with the European Union, and she put that before Parliament on more than one occasion. I venture to suggest that one way of dealing with that problem was that if somebody wanted to change any detail, any part or indeed the whole of that, they should put forward an amendment to the Motion to approve it. That would seem to be the reasonable way in which such a thing could be done, but so far as I know that has never happened and the only amendment to the arrangement suggested that an alternative should be found to the Irish backstop. Of itself, that does not change the arrangement. You have to answer that and find the alternative; my noble friend indicated the possibilities, and these are quite difficult to completely understand. I do not think that so far they have been completely accepted by the Government for negotiation. I sincerely hope that these matters will be brought forward if the Government are to proceed with the negotiations.

The result has been a lot of discussion in the House of Commons about various matters. The important thing to remember is that the withdrawal agreement is a legal document and has legal effect. Added to that is the political declaration. That is a document of intention, not legally binding in the same way as the withdrawal agreement, and I understood that the European Union had said it wanted the withdrawal agreement to be fixed before it had substantive discussions on future arrangements. One of the aspects of the present arrangement that Mrs May negotiated was a period of two years’ transition. That is an important safeguard against the sort of cliff edges we have been hearing described in the course of this interesting and in some ways extremely saddening debate.

The result is that nothing has really happened to change that proposal. It has been turned down, but without any explanation of how it could be improved. I honestly think that the House of Commons has lost an opportunity in that respect. Noble Lords will remember that it had some debates and indicative votes about what it wanted. Most of these indicative votes, so far as I remember, were concerned with the political declaration. Indeed, the discussions that took place after the then Prime Minister opened them up with Mr Corbyn were of that kind—that is to say, they dealt mainly with the political declaration. Agreement on that is not essential to the withdrawal. I believe it is important to try to distinguish between the two.

That brings me to this Bill. It asks that the Prime Minister should write to the President of the European Council asking for an extension. I remember pointing out—I hope humbly—when this appeared in the earlier Bill that no reason was given for the extension. Well, this Bill has a reason given for the extension, and a very interesting reason it is. It says the extension is made,

“in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks”,

in relation to the political projection.

That suggests to me that the proponents of this Bill believe that the agreement that presently exists, and is the only one as far as I know, is to be implemented after it has been further discussed with a supplementary point about the political declaration. If that is correct, this Bill goes a very great distance towards securing what is required in the way of a withdrawal agreement, which is not no deal without an agreement, but an agreement that has already been passed by the European Union and which the House of Commons has dissented from so far. It looks as though this promises that it will be passed. In that sense, if I am right about that, it is quite a considerable Bill. It suggests the possibility of very substantial progress towards a deal for taking us out of the European Union. On that interpretation, I believe that a good deal of the talk that we have had about no deal is set aside by this in a direct and constructive manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

No, that is not what I said at all. I am saying that it makes the Government’s position very difficult to persuade the EU to do any kind of alternative deal because all the other options remaining on the table are perfectly acceptable to it. In our view, as I said, the Bill would wreck any prospect for a renegotiated deal ahead of 31 October. It clearly would not honour the referendum result. It would be another pointless and harmful delay and would continue to contribute to the rancour we are experiencing in this House and in the public debate generally. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords whatever that the Government cannot support the Bill. I urge all noble Lords across the House who are committed to leaving the EU and to respecting the referendum to therefore vote against it.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Just before my noble friend sits down, could he say what he understands is meant by,

“the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union”,

referred to in Clause 1(4) of the Bill?

[Lord Callanan]

I do not have a copy of the Bill in front of me. Obviously we are not the sponsors of the legislation. My noble and learned friend is a distinguished lawyer, and I will decline the opportunity to clarify exactly what I think the proposers of the clause mean. It is not our Bill. I would be happy to write to him with an opinion on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who has contributed. I am merely the messenger for the elected House because we are dealing with unique legislation from the elected Commons to try to deal with the uncertainties. I appreciate that my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, are probably the only two Members who have spelled out that while the purpose of the Bill is to stop us crashing out without a deal, it contains a mechanism for any Prime Minister who can pack the Commons to take us out without a deal. That is in the conditions in Clause 1. I have no doubt that that will be raised in Committee.

I have two brief points. I have picked up from the debate that it would be a very high level of political immaturity for leaders in the other place to buy an election before 1 November. It is quite clear that trust has broken down. It would be absolutely barmy.

My final point—and I am sorry that it is a bit of a domestic policy issue—is that this is a Private Member’s Bill. It is bit like the Cooper-Letwin Bill in April. At that time, because the Bill was a Private Member’s Bill, the Government Front Bench, who basically regulate the Chamber when things break down, went on strike. They removed themselves and it caused a degree of chaos in our administration. Today, we have had a Second Reading without a speaker’s list, and it has gone great because everyone could see that there was enough time to get in to speak. We have a day on this tomorrow. After the events of April, as the Member in charge of the Bill, I complained to the Procedure Committee that when a Private Member’s Bill that the Government do not agree with is in the House and the Front Bench go on strike, the power to regulate should be given to the chair so that the chair could say “That is wrong” or “This is wrong”. I have had no acknowledgement or reply from the Procedure Committee. My complaint has just been dismissed.

We are going into Committee and Report tomorrow and I have no idea about any amendments being tabled. I do not want any chaos deliberately caused by the Front Bench abdicating their responsibilities if help with regulation is needed. It is quite clear. Earlier today there were three hours when there was hardly anybody on the Front Bench. Nobody took any notice of any breaches of procedure, and there were quite a few—only one was picked up, by my noble friend. I hope that, tomorrow, the Government will live up to their responsibilities. Irrespective of whether they agree with the policy or the legislation, the Government Front Bench have the power to regulate the House. If they are not prepared to exercise it, they should give it to the chair for the day. I beg to move.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I think the noble Lord said that there would not be time in the Commons to deal with amendments and that therefore, on the whole, he would prefer not to have any. Did I pick that up correctly, or is that wrong? I would like to see the purpose referred to in Clause 1(4) in the letter.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

The question has been moved.

Brexit: Discussions with the European Union

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords—

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, might there be an opportunity for the House of Commons to indicate what alteration to the present agreement it is seeking? I have not yet seen a detailed amendment proposed in the House of Commons to the existing agreement in the hope that a modification of it could be agreed.

[Lord Callanan]

As always, my noble and learned friend makes some wise points, but an amendment was agreed in the House of Commons: the so-called Brady amendment on alternative arrangements to ensure no hard border. That remains the one positive amendment passed, indicating where support in the House of Commons might lie, but of course we need to persuade the EU of the merits of that.

Brexit: Free Trade Agreement

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I thank the noble Lord for his advice on answering questions. I did answer the question. I will not go into details of the talks because they are still live and are still taking place. Suffice it to say that if there is to be a deal that will deliver Brexit, and if it is true that the Labour Party wants to deliver Brexit—I know that many of its members might disagree, but that is today’s position of the leadership—let us explore how that can be done in a compromise fashion. The talks seek to explore that, and we accept that that requires compromise from both sides.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I had understood that the question at the moment was on the withdrawal agreement. The European Union made it clear that future relationships would not be a matter for substantive discussion until after the withdrawal agreement was settled. Therefore, why should the negotiations to which the noble Baroness referred deal with matters connected with the future agreement, rather than seeking to achieve what we urgently need—namely, an agreed withdrawal agreement?

[Lord Callanan]

With the benefit of his great experience, my noble and learned friend makes an important point—that the withdrawal agreement, as negotiated, will not change. I think that even many in the Labour Party accept that it is not going to change, which makes it slightly strange that they voted against it.

Brexit

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith]

It is to change the club’s rules. In this case, Parliament is the club. I was just trying to explain how I see the situation. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rising to his feet and gladly give way to him.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I think that there has been some discussion about this. The situation is that the EU is in charge of the treaty. Therefore, if we are not out of the treaty, we remain members as a result of the treaty of the European Union. However, the treaty by itself was not the whole story, because we had to pass an Act of Parliament to make the treaty work in the United Kingdom. If, as has happened, the EU has extended the date so far as the treaty is concerned, in order to make our law conform with the way the treaty works, the statutory instrument is required. Otherwise, there would be a discontinuity between the treaty on the one hand and the initial law on the other.

[Lord Goldsmith]

I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said. I see that the noble and learned Lord, the Advocate-General, has come to sit next to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to put him straight on all of this.

Let us move on quickly to the things that matter more than that. The issue is what the country is now faced with. In that debate we are now really a spectator, as has been said. At this stage, we are watching as the House of Commons considers what to do. We may well find that, through the mechanism of indicative votes—personally, it is what I hope we will see—it will now consider all the possible alternative routes for this country. As has been said by a number of your Lordships, we are reaching that point at a very late stage and, as has also been said, that is as a result of the obduracy of the Prime Minister. One has to respect her stamina and perseverance but, as already raised in this debate, the fact remains that there are people whose voices have not been heard by the Prime Minister. It was remarkable to watch on the television yesterday who was turning up at Chequers. I admire their motorcars, and there were two exceptional ones that I envied, but it was surprising for the people of this country to see that this is how their future is being decided—by private discussions with just a small group of people.

Now, I hope that that will not happen and that the House of Commons will take charge of the situation. I have no doubt that it will take into account many of the points that your Lordships have discussed today. I am glad that there was a reference during our debate to the position of young people. I have seen the benefits of Erasmus in my own family, and I saw the young people during the march protesting about their lack of voice.

I think that only the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to the contribution that the European Union has made to peace and security in Europe. I was struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, at Saturday’s march and I am sorry that he is not in his place. This was powerful stuff. He has said it before in this House, although perhaps not in those words. As I recall, he said that being alone was not Churchill’s wish or hope; it was his fear. Peace and security is a very important matter which no doubt the House of Commons will take into account when it considers where we go from here.

Inevitably, your Lordships have talked about the legitimacy of a referendum. Again, it is for the House of Commons to consider in its indicative votes whether that is a way forward. I myself have never understood the objections to a further referendum on democratic grounds. I appreciate that people who thought they had achieved a particular result the first time round do not want to see it rerun. However, regarding legitimacy, in an earlier debate in this House—I do not which one it was; it might have been the first debate but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Newby, can tell me—the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, used the colourful if slightly whimsical example of his maiden aunts being invited to make a choice on the basis of inadequate information. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who asked why this would be undemocratic.

As a result of what the European Council said, there has also been much discussion about the need to hold further European elections. If that is the case, it will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, inconvenient—one could perhaps put it more strongly than that—but I find it difficult to describe it as undemocratic to ask people to vote in an election. That is perhaps why the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, referred to the need to give people the final say. However, that is not for us to decide today. Looking at the annunciator, I see that there is a Division in the Commons. Maybe I should sit down before we find out what is going to happen over the next few days. Arguments were powerfully put by my noble friend Lord Adonis. I am not sure that I agree with the sequencing that he has in mind but that was not the fullness of his observation.

In an earlier debate, I drew an analogy with the play “Waiting for Godot”. At that stage, we thought that there would be a further opinion or a further amendment to the legal position that would cause us to reconsider what we had been saying about that. I quoted the Irish critic who had referred to “Waiting for Godot” as,

“a play in which nothing happens, twice”.

I hope that we are not going to see nothing happening three or four times.

We have to move on for the sake of the country, and it is now to the other place that we must look to get the guidance and establish the direction in which the country will be going. That is what I look forward to seeing at the end of this evening when the House of Commons decides about the procedure, and during the rest of this week, when it makes its decisions on the votes.

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

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, like a number of others, I supported the idea of having a referendum with no particular terms in it as to what might be decided. The Government made it plain in literature put out to every house that the referendum result would be implemented. That was a sad situation as far as I am concerned, because I happened to vote remain, but I believe that we are under an obligation if at all possible to give effect to the view that was expressed in the referendum. It is absolutely essential that the Government and the House of Commons make a real effort to do this.

It is true that people have different ideas. But, in order to get this done, you have to get an idea that seems generally to prevail. That is what I assume the House of Commons will try to do tomorrow. I suggested some time ago in a correspondence in the Times that a series of alternatives should be put against the Prime Minister’s deal to see where the major change was wanted. That has not happened so far—although exactly what will happen tomorrow in the House of Commons I am not sufficient of a prophet to be able to say. Members seem to be embarking on a very difficult procedure, but I wish them every success in coming out with a clear result.

As far as this House is concerned, we have had some very interesting speeches. I am not attempting to make one. The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Owen, have presented interesting views which I am sure should commend themselves to the House of Commons. In my view, the peace and security of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom are fundamental. Getting a border of the right kind between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, in the event of our coming out of the European Union, requires that the rules on both sides are the same. There is scope for changing the rules on both sides in the future, but having the same rules is required.

There is a lot of talk about the customs union and the single market. We have to remember that, by the time the referendum vote was taken, Mr Cameron had secured a binding agreement with the European Union that we were no longer part of the movement towards a closer political union. Therefore, at that time the only elements that were really important in our relationship with Europe were the customs union and the single market. So, if we are properly to give effect to the result of the referendum, we cannot remain in the customs union and the single market—but of course we may be able to have customs arrangements that enable us, for example, to have bargains outside. That was certainly one of the prominent points of view of the leavers in the argument that went forward.

It therefore seems essential that, while it is for the House of Commons to make the decision, we as a political unit should come forward with a proper arrangement that meets the House of Commons’ wishes, in the hope that it will also meet the wishes of the European Union, to give effect to the referendum in a way that preserves the rules between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. In a sense, that is the backstop. Of course, the situation is that the negotiations about exactly what these rules should be are matters that can be open—but it would be necessary to preserve the continuity when you change the rules.

I entirely agree with those who believe that no deal would be a disaster for the UK and for the European Union. Most of the arguments that I have heard about this concern the economic aspects of the matter, but there are far more important relationships than that: security arrangements have been mentioned, and I must say that I am very conscious of the medical arrangements that are required to be made. We very much need to have proper uniformity in clinical trials, for example, and that is not easy to achieve. There are delicate arrangements in the process of being carried out, but unfortunately Brexit will come before they are completed, so it is very difficult to be sure.

When I came here this afternoon I was very happy to vote for the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. However, I am very sorry to say that I understand it somewhat differently from the way that she put it forward. The first part requires,

“Her Majesty’s Government to take all appropriate steps to ensure that … the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union without an agreement with the European Union”.

Well, the best way to secure that is to secure an agreement; it is nothing to do with no deal. You do it by securing an agreement. I would be happy with that and would like to see it happen—very much so. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, the terms of the Motion are perfectly in accordance with what the Prime Minister wants: namely, to get an agreement that is effective and supported by the House of Commons—and then, we hope, supported by the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

I think that you can read that as taking no deal off the table. Of course, we are doing our best. No deal is not our preferred option. We want to avoid no deal if at all possible, but we continue to believe that the best way to avoid no deal is to vote for a deal. For the Labour Party to come along here and say that it is against everything, without putting forward any positive proposals, is not acceptable.

I have set out our position. If the noble Baroness wishes to move her Motion, she is entitled to do so. That is the end of my remarks.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, it is absolutely plain that the Motion put down does not exclude expressly the no-deal situation. If we compare this with the Motion that was put down last time, it is different. What is required here—and it is an effort that I thoroughly support—is that everything should be done to get a satisfactory agreement and that we do not go out without an agreement. Surely, the right way to do that is to try to get an agreement. I look to the House of Commons to say tomorrow what its preferred alternative is to what the Prime Minister has done so far.

Motion agreed.