Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too offer my sympathies to the Minister for having to take forward this Bill under the duress of a heavy cold. I hope that my comments will not add too much to his coughing and spluttering.

This is an exceptionally short Bill but still a very significant one. The Act that it replaces was said by David Cameron to be

“the biggest transfer of powers from the Executive in centuries.”

If we accept his judgment, it follows that the repeal of the Act to return to the position that preceded its passage marks a major transfer of powers back to the Executive. So the key question before us is whether such a transfer is justified. On these Benches, we believe that it is not.

The purpose of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was to provide a stable framework within which the coalition Government formed in 2010 could operate. In his Second Reading speech in another place, even Michael Gove accepted that it had been successful in achieving this and had prevented the Tories “collapsing the Government” early to gain a political advantage.

The reason we have this Bill before us today is that the previous minority Conservative Government were frustrated in calling an election because they did not have a parliamentary majority. Yet, even with the Act in place, Theresa May was able to call an election, having had a revelation while up a mountain, and Boris Johnson was able to call an election three years early in the wholly exceptional circumstances of 2019.

The advantages of having a fixed term are clear. It brings some certainty and reduces the advantage the Prime Minister has in choosing an election date that maximises his or her chance of victory. Research in the UK by Schleicher and Belu shows that, where elections have been called opportunistically before the statutory end point of a Parliament, it has given the incumbents an average increase in vote share of 3.5% over what might otherwise have been expected, which has translated into an 11% seat advantage. In circumstances where no party has a majority in the Commons—a highly likely scenario for the UK in the future—it gives the largest party a massive advantage.

Fixed terms also provide the parties with a more level playing field on electoral expenditure.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I am most grateful. What was the massive advantage in 2017?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the massive advantage was perceived in the mind of the Prime Minister. The massive disadvantage was her judgment, not that she did not have the opportunity to exercise that judgment. We think the exercise of that judgment, on what was by any accounts if not a whim then a very short period of decision-making, is a bad idea for democracy.

As I was saying, fixed terms provide parties with a more level playing field on electoral expenditure. If the Government can plan for an early election, they can ratchet up spending in the year before the planned, but unannounced, date. Opposition parties will typically be unable to take the risk of planning and spending on the basis of an early election date. For these reasons, a fixed-term Parliament is the international norm. Some three-quarters of the world’s major democracies have a fixed term. So do the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland legislatures. No doubt that is why Labour was so enthusiastically in favour of introducing a fixed-term Parliament in Gordon Brown’s manifesto in 2010. I am not arguing that every single aspect of the current Act is incapable of improvement, but I am seeking to defend the principle which lies behind it.

So if we are to reverse the biggest transfer of executive power from the Executive in centuries and hand it back to the Prime Minister, you would hope that there would be a compelling reason for doing so. In moving Second Reading in another place, Michael Gove said that this compelling reason was that

“it gives power to the people.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/21; col. 788.]

This is pure doublespeak. It does not give power to the people; it gives it to the Prime Minster, pure and simple.

I suspect that this Prime Minster will not follow the precedent of his predecessor by having a revelation during a long mountain walk, but he might have it on the roundabout at Peppa Pig World and come back the next day and simply call an election. How do the people have any say in that decision? They clearly do not. They do have the power to vote the Prime Minister back or not at the subsequent election, but, if you really wanted to give power to the people, surely a Prime Minister would follow the public mood and, when it was supportive of an early election, call one. But that is exactly the time when a Prime Minister is least likely to call an election, because the people want elections when they want to change the Government, not retain them. So the democratic argument for prime ministerial discretion on calling an early election is entirely bogus.

This Bill seeks to put the clock back and reinstate prime ministerial powers over Parliament. But it goes further than that. With Clause 3, it seeks to increase prime ministerial power further by removing the power of the court to adjudicate on the way in which that power is exercised. As we saw in 2019, judicial oversight is not just a theoretical possibility but, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, an actual possibility, and the Prime Minister simply wants to cut out this possibility in future.

If that is his aim, there is a much more satisfactory and democratic way of doing this, which is to make the calling of an election before the end of the full allotted span of a Parliament subject to a vote in the Commons. This reins in the executive power that the Bill seeks to give the Prime Minister, without unduly hobbling his or her ability to call an election—because, at the very least, the Prime Minister would have to consult Cabinet colleagues and persuade their party to vote for such an election.

In practice, it is unlikely that the Prime Minister will be denied an election by Parliament—by the Commons. Oppositions nearly always want elections and, if the Prime Minister is able to persuade neither their colleagues nor the Opposition to vote for one, the likelihood is that it would not be in the national interest. We will therefore support an amendment in Committee to make the premature calling of an election subject to a vote by the Commons. By doing so, we would remove the problem of the ouster clause and restrain prime ministerial power but allow MPs to decide whether it is in the national interest to have an election when the Prime Minister wants to call one. My colleagues will raise other aspects of the Bill both today and in subsequent stages, but, if the Lords can persuade the Commons to take back some control of the electoral process, I believe that it will have fulfilled its constitutional role.

To return to first principles, the British public do not elect a Government; they elect a Parliament, and an Executive are then drawn from that Parliament. Parliament is the servant of the people, and Parliament, not the Executive, should have the decisive vote on when the people should have their say.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Court of Justice of the European Union

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot add very much to what I said earlier, which is that the EU defines the court of justice as the final arbiter of what EU law means. We do not challenge that and cannot do anything about it. For as long as EU laws apply in Northern Ireland, no doubt the court will continue to assert that right, but that is not the same as saying that it is reasonable for disputes to be settled in the court or for infraction processes to be launched by the Commission, as they already have been in this context. It is the settlement of disputes that is the difficulty.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

The noble Lord just said that the role of the court is not working; as far as I am aware, the court has not yet been asked to adjudicate on anything in terms of the operation of the protocol. If that is correct, why was the Minister so prepared to sign up to a role for the court in 2019, when he is now implying that it is a constitutional outrage?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, it is true that the dispute has not reached the court yet but, nevertheless, an infraction process was launched in March. The Commission’s launch of an infraction process, seemingly on a hair trigger, has created many of the concerns that we now have about the court. That sort of process is appropriate for member states, with all the checks and balances that exist when you are a member state. As we can now see from the way that it is being used, it is not appropriate for this country, of which Northern Ireland is a part and which is not a member state of the EU.

EU Relations

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for advanced sight of his Statement. However, I express my disappointment that this is the second time in as many months that he has waited until the final day before a recess to make a Statement on such important issues. He knows that some colleagues may not be present and that, importantly, the other place is not sitting. The Statement may well be repeated by the Paymaster-General in due course, but there will be a significant delay and I do not see anything in the Minister’s text that could not have been shared with both Houses on Monday or Tuesday.

We all know that the Government’s position on these matters often fails to stand up to scrutiny, but it is only right that he and his colleagues in the other place subject themselves to that scrutiny. I have suggested before that continuing the Brexit melodrama suits the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. He has been dismissive, but perhaps the hope in No.10 is that this battle will finally distract the papers and public from the sleaze accusations—call me cynical.

We welcome the Minister’s update on discussions with the French Government, the Commission and our friends in Guernsey and Jersey around fishing licences. During the passage of the Fisheries Act, your Lordships’ House warned that the timescales for implementing a new licensing system were tight and that issues such as these may arise. Clearly, this does not excuse some of the interventions we have seen during the recent dispute, and we hope that all sides can continue these discussions in the calmer manner seen during recent days.

On Horizon, it is of course disappointing that ratification of the UK’s participation is taking so long. As the pandemic has shown, cross-border academic collaboration can only be a good thing. UK researchers have already faced a huge amount of uncertainty as the Government weighed up whether to participate in programmes such as Horizon. Now that the decision has been made and enshrined in the TCA, as noted by the Minister, the EU must act accordingly. He says that, if the EU does not comply, the Government will create a domestic equivalent, so can he confirm what contingency planning may already be taking place? When could such a scheme be operational? I am happy for him to write to me on that.

We have all watched with interest and alarm in recent days as the rhetoric around Article 16 is once again ratcheted up. We read of potential dates for the UK to trigger a trade dispute, and of others on which Mr Šefčovič will outline retaliatory measures. Cooler heads must now prevail. We have also seen reports that the Minister is seeking outside legal advice on rewriting the protocol, including on the Court of Justice issue. Commentators suspect that this is to prevent the Attorney-General having to overrule in-house legal advice, so can the Minister confirm whether such a search is indeed under way?

This also brings us back to the question of when Parliament will see the legal text sent to Brussels by the Government. We were told that it merely replicated the contents of the Command Paper in legalese, but if that is the case, why is new advice necessary? Does he intend to produce a revised draft? Why were Ministers in Northern Ireland not consulted? It is clear from the Minister’s Statement that UK-EU relations have not significantly improved, despite the diplomatic mastery that he deployed during his short trip to Lisbon.

Following each week of talks, we hear that, rather than bridging gaps, the two sides are growing further apart. That will not only deeply disappoint UK businesses but, as we move into the festive period, frustrate them too. This is not a game to them; rather, it is about getting products on shelves and sustaining people’s livelihoods. At the time of publication, a month ago, a variety of business groups believed that the Commission’s proposals represented a significant step forward. We know that there are disputes, but there remains widespread agreement that there would be significant improvement.

Central to this are the people and communities of Northern Ireland. The evidence increasingly shows that they want a deal between the EU and UK, not another stand-off, with all the uncertainty that that brings. The respected Liverpool Institute for Irish Studies found that people of Northern Ireland oppose the use of Article 16 and instead want solutions.

Business groups in Northern Ireland are demanding a deal. Seamus Leheny of Logistics UK said that

“a UK-EU negotiated outcome is vital”

for the economy. Interestingly, he has not had any representation over the ECJ whatsoever from his 18,000 members. That is why Labour has called on the UK and EU to bring Northern Ireland’s leaders and communities into the process to speak for themselves. It is simply untenable to say to the people of Northern Ireland, “This is what we’ve decided: take it or leave it”. Northern Ireland must be involved in these talks and in the huge decisions being made about its future.

The Minister has said on several occasions that he stands ready to look at any and all proposals for improving the flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, wherever they may come from. Why, then, has he been so reticent to seriously consider the idea of a wide-ranging, long-lasting veterinary agreement that is backed by organisations like the CBI? The EU has previously signalled that such a deal can be done, so why is that not currently at least on the table?

Although it increasingly feels inevitable, it continues to be our view that triggering Article 16 would be a destabilising step for businesses and communities alike. It may serve the Government well to maintain division, but it does nothing for anyone else. The Minister has been clear that he does not like the protocol. We know that, because he tours the studios every week telling the country of all the problems he has found with the deal that he personally negotiated.

But the evidence shows that, whatever the Minister wants, people in Northern Ireland want a deal. It is time for the Minister to show some responsibility. He should work constructively with the EU to find solutions, and then, if he still can, given everything that has happened, he must play an active role in rebuilding support and trust among all communities in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for making the Statement. However, just as he refers to the production by the EU of “non-papers”, it seems to me that this is largely a non-Statement. It contains nothing new and largely consists of yet more sabre-rattling—something that, I have to accept, the Minister excels at. He says that the trade and co-operation agreement is working well. According to the OBR, its effect is that our GDP will be 4% lower than if we had remained in the EU, so I suppose we should be very grateful that it is not working badly.

Underlying all the issues to which the Statement refers are two substantive problems for the Government. The first relates to trust. As the Minister made clear in his Lisbon speech, the UK is widely distrusted as a reliable partner. As a result, everything becomes more difficult, and what should be relatively small, easily resolvable issues, such as the licensing of fishing boats, become potential major flashpoints.

The second is that there exists at the heart of the Northern Ireland problem the irresolvable issue of where the EU-UK trade boundary is set. The Government in reality do not want a boundary at all when it comes to GB trading with Northern Ireland but want one when it comes to trading with the EU. The Good Friday agreement means that they cannot possibly have this best of both worlds. In seeking to achieve that impossibility, the Government are, understandably, running into problems, but it is completely disingenuous for the Minister to protest about unintended consequences of having a border down the Irish Sea when the Government’s own impact statement at the time set out in major detail exactly what those deleterious impacts would be. The Minister negotiated the deal. I cannot believe that he did not understand the consequences at the time. Did he think that it would be possible to live with them, or did he even then think that he could renege on the deal once the main trade and co-operation agreement had been signed? Either way, he was less than straightforward in presenting the deal as a Great British negotiating success.

On the operation of the protocol, the EU has made very substantive concessions which appear to offer the prospect of a resolution of the main operational problems. In these circumstances, repeatedly to dangle the prospect of Article 16 in front of the EU just looks like a provocation which will make the negotiations harder rather than easier. At the weekend, in commenting on the Article 16 threat, Sir John Major said that it was “colossally stupid” and “un-Conservative”. In part, he said this because it would threaten a trade war with the EU, a prospect which Simon Coveney again raised at the weekend, which would indeed be colossally stupid. But in part also, he said it because it undermines the Government’s central claim that they “got Brexit done”. Triggering Article 16 would lead to chaos and confusion, when businesses, not least in Northern Ireland, want stability and continuity. It would be the opposite of Brexit having been done. How, therefore, does the Minister rebut Sir John’s comments? How does he respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that the majority of people in the Province do not believe that triggering Article 16 is in their best interests or that the potential involvement of the European Court of Justice is a red line—it is not; it is for the Minister, but it is not for the people in Northern Ireland.

It is overwhelmingly in the national interest to deal unemotionally with the problems in the operation of the protocol on the basis of the proposals now on the table. Can the Minister assure the House that he will finally put his sabre away and just get back to straight- forward negotiating?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for their reactions to my comments. I will try to deal with the points they raised systematically by subject.

On the initial point raised by the noble Baroness about the timing of the Statement, international business has its own timetable. Unfortunately, there are meetings and contacts the whole time which shape outcomes. It was our view that this was the most sensible moment to give a clear update in the best knowledge of the situation. We will continue to update the House at the right moment to keep it up to date with developments.

On the question of whether the TCA is working well, I think it is. That there are disputes over fisheries and Horizon does not change the fact that this vast agreement, the biggest anywhere, has come into effect with remarkably little difficulty. I have expressed before my scepticism—although I recognise that people can have different views—about some of the predictions of the economic effect of Brexit. I continue to be sceptical about the particular figure referred to by the noble Lord; I think we will see real life set this out in due course.

On fisheries, I thank the noble Baroness for recognising that the position that the French Government have taken is not reasonable; I do not think it is. That we are dealing with this question quite late in the year and the timetable is tight is of course because the French Government did not send the necessary paperwork for the applications to the Commission until June, half way through the year, and most of the evidence we needed arrived only in September. So, what is represented as a very long discussion is in fact quite a short one; most of the 1,800 licences that I referred to were given before the start of this year or in the first week of the year. We are doing our best and we proceed according to the evidence. Discussions are continuing this week and I am sure we will get to a fair outcome.

On Horizon, obviously, contingency planning takes place for all eventualities. We had hoped that it would not be needed, and I still hope that it will not be needed. I am very happy to set out in writing where things stand on this subject, because it is of huge importance to a large number of universities and research institutes, not just in this country but across Europe, which have an interest in collaborating with us. I repeat that much the best thing is if we can see that the treaty is delivered on, we are able to join and things can proceed as we expected. I still hope that can happen.

On Northern Ireland, there is a lot to say and some of it has been said before, but I repeat that, in our view, Article 16 is not inevitable—I want to be clear about that. It is much better to come to a negotiated agreement; that is the best way forward for stability, sustainability and prosperity in Northern Ireland. That is what we are working to do, but the safeguards are there if it is not possible to deliver that outcome. I am not concluding at the moment that that outcome is not possible; I think it is, and we are working hard to deliver it. Obviously, we look at the real-world situation in Northern Ireland and the stark division of opinion that is clear from the polling, and that shapes the situation we are dealing with. We think it is absolutely legitimate to use safeguards which were put in place for exactly this situation if that is the best way of supporting stability in Northern Ireland. However, let us see whether we can avoid that situation.

On legal advice, I think the noble Baroness would not expect me to disclose the details of legal advice and how the work of the Attorney-General is done, but I hope that she agrees that we would want her to have the best possible advice, reflecting the full range of opinion on these very sensitive and unprecedented questions. I think that is a reasonable expectation.

On the negotiation process, I do not think it is true that we—the UK and the EU—are growing apart in the negotiations. We have inched a little bit closer; there has been some movement, and that is good. We just are not moving together quickly enough, and the gap is still an extremely wide one. However, there has been some incremental progress. It was our hope that that could have been quicker and more substantive, but we are trying.

I do not think it is true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, the EU proposals offer a satisfactory solution to the problem that we now face. As I said, we will set out our view on that in detail in due course. For example, they do not eliminate a single customs declaration for any good moving into Northern Ireland. The famous 50% figure is actually a 50% reduction in the number of fields in the customs declaration, with most of the significant ones still remaining—it is not a 50% elimination of process. On medicines, we still do not have a situation that deals with the reality of the fact that the regulator in Northern Ireland is not the MHRA but the EMA, so there is clearly a risk of divergence and not being able to deliver medicines to the whole country—and we have to deal with that. So they make progress, but they do not take us the whole way there.

To repeat, we would like to get to an agreement. We are working hard to get to one, and we talk to all ranges of Northern Ireland opinion. I spoke only yesterday to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to update them on the talks, and we continue to proceed in a way that we hope will make the best progress. I do not think that the threats that are swirling around of a reaction to Article 16 are in any way helpful, but obviously that is the business of the European Union.

I conclude that we want to find a solution to this. It is obvious that the protocol is not the only possible solution to the set of problems that are presented to us in Northern Ireland. There are other solutions and possibilities—we set them out in our Command Paper—and we still think that that would be the best way forward to provide a sustainable, stable solution in everybody’s interests in Northern Ireland.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Effect of Renegotiation on Other Trade Negotiations

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid I do not entirely agree with the suggestion that we have been cavalier about our obligations under the protocol. Unfortunately, the problems that exist in Northern Ireland are the problems of implementation of the protocol, not of non-implementation of it. We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on setting up services to help British businesses to trade with Northern Ireland, but unfortunately that has not solved the underlying difficulties. So implementation is not the solution; renegotiation and a better solution is.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, in his speech in Portugal the Minister said that the Government are

“constantly faced with generalised accusations”

that they

“can’t be trusted and are not a reasonable international actor.”

When I asked him last time that he was at the Dispatch Box why this might be the case, he said that was a question that he constantly asked himself. I wonder whether this constant process of self-reflection has produced a clearer answer than the one that he was able to give me at that point.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I like to think that I engage in a constant process of self-reflection. I am reassured that it usually reaches the same result, which is that when I look at the way that this Government have acted on the international stage since Brexit was established, the role that we have played in the world, the establishment of AUKUS and our position on issues to do with China and many other issues, I think we stand as a constructive and fully responsible international player.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, these matters were well debated at the time. The then UK Internal Market Bill is now a very good Act to protect the integrity of the single market of the UK. It does that very well. I am now looking forward. We are trying to find solutions to a problem that we hoped would not arise but which has now arisen because of the relatively insensitive way in which we have been forced to implement this protocol. We need to find a solution that everybody in Northern Ireland can get behind, which provides a better balance and which fully supports the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, in his speech yesterday, the noble Lord said that

“we are constantly faced with generalised accusations that we can’t be trusted and are not a reasonable international actor.”

Why does the noble Lords think that this is now the case?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I asked myself that question implicitly in the speech and I still do not really know the answer. I think our behaviour since the start of the year as a fully independent country has been extremely constructive internationally. For example, we have established our own sanctions regime; we have been very proactive in it; we have welcomed citizens of Hong Kong to this country; we have been among the first to raise questions about the treatment of the Uighurs; and we have been the first to bring in sanctions against Belarus. I think we have been extremely constructive in this process over the years. I am sorry that from time to time we have faced accusations that we do not behave accordingly, but I do not think they are justified by the facts.

House of Lords Appointments Commission

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot answer for the Leader of the House; I answer on behalf of the Government. The Government that the noble Baroness had the honour of serving nominated 354 Members to your Lordships’ House. I think that getting too excited about my right honourable friend’s record so far is probably not appropriate.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, recent appointments show that the Government have, in effect, torn up the Burns report. Do they have a strategy for the size of the Lords, or will this Prime Minister continue to dole out peerages to his chums and financial supporters at will?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat that the House of Lords needs refreshing from time to time; that has been the position of all Governments. I completely disagree with the noble Lord’s analysis of the situation.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, some four and a half years after the referendum result, we can now see in the treaty that we are discussing today the outline shape of the UK’s future relationship with the EU, yet we have had no real opportunity to read it and no chance to consider its implications. It is the single most important treaty that this Parliament has had to consider since we joined the European Community in 1973, yet today we are invited simply to rubber-stamp it in a matter of hours.

A treaty which the Prime Minister claims restores our sovereignty begins its life by mocking parliamentary sovereignty. The Prime Minister of course disdains the convention that we call a constitution. If he can break any of those conventions to make his own life easier, he will, as he tried to do with Prorogation last year and as he did with his list of Peers last week. He has done so again in this case.

Today’s debate is a case not of Parliament weighing the arguments and forming a view but of it waving through hundreds of pages of law unread, unanalysed and unquestioned. There is no scope today to discuss the details of the Bill or, because of tomorrow’s deadline, to contemplate amending it, despite the extraordinarily broad Henry VIII powers which it contains and on which your Lordships’ House may wish to express a view.

The country will have many months and years to find out what the treaty means in practice, but that does not mean that we cannot assess it against the key purposes of any Government in any country at any time. Does it make us more secure? Does it make us more prosperous? Does it help to unite the country? And does it strengthen our position in the world? In each case, the answer is no.

On security, the EU has, over many years, built up a series of measures which has made it easier to identify criminals and terrorists and bring them to justice. Its crown jewels are the European arrest warrant and the real-time European crime-fighting databases, such as Schengen II. We are now outside all of those. The warm words of the treaty on security co-operation seek to make the best of a bad job, but it is a major step backwards, leaving us with literally zero prospect of establishing as effective a system for fighting crime and terrorism as the one we are leaving.

On the economy, the treaty provides for tariff and quota-free trade in goods, but literally hundreds of new impediments on trade in services. The Canadian agreement, to which the Prime Minister refers glowingly, has, by the Government’s own admission, more than 400 restraints on free trade in services, and we see that reflected in this treaty—whether it is ending mutual recognition of most professional qualifications or the end of passporting for financial services. Yet the UK has a big balance of trade deficit in goods and a big balance of trade surplus in services, so we are penalising the sector where we are strongest and favouring the EU in the sector where we are weakest. This is a massive win for the EU at our expense.

Even in trade in goods, exporters are faced with a massive increase in bureaucracy and red tape: some 200 million new customs forms to be completed each year and an extra 50,000 customs officials required to process them. Those who favoured Brexit made much of Brussels bureaucracy—just wait until they see how many new layers of form-filling they have imposed on British businesses.

We are told that any trade losses with the EU will be more than matched by our new global trading partnerships, but who are these to be with? Not the US, unless we capitulate on food standards. Not China, where our exports are actually falling, unless we stop criticising its human rights record—ask the Australians. Not India, unless we allow many more Indian immigrants —ask Priti Patel of the likelihood of that. And ask any small business about the relative costs of exporting to the EU and to the Far East and you will find that there is only one answer—and it does not support the Government’s argument.

On maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom—the third test for any Government—it is to me almost incredible that the Conservative and Unionist Party has erected a border down the Irish Sea and allowed the EU to dictate what goods we can trade across it. Seed potatoes have become the only good which will not encounter friction in moving west across the Irish Sea, and this is because Brussels has banned internal UK trade in them entirely.

As it becomes increasingly apparent that the economy of Northern Ireland has closer links with that of the Irish Republic than that of Great Britain, it seems to me that people in the Province will, inevitably, increasingly prioritise their relationship with the south over that across the Irish Sea. The Irish Government’s decision to fund Erasmus students from Northern Ireland as our Government shamefully exit the scheme shows just how aware the Republic is of this new reality. No wonder some in the Province who so enthusiastically supported Brexit now realise just what a price they are having to pay.

On our global influence—the final test of government —the world has looked askance as the Brexit saga has played out. People have not been patting us on the back and congratulating us on our pluck and resolve; they have all asked, “Why on earth are you shooting yourselves in the foot?” Incoming President Biden has certainly made it clear where his priorities lie, and it is not with the UK. As of today, the UK has no foreign policy and no capacity to influence international events, or even standards-setting, as part of a single EU response. With a weakened economy, a decimated aid budget and a new reputation for untrustworthiness, our soft and hard power will be less than at any point since before the Napoleonic wars.

Your Lordships’ House is being asked today to vote for a treaty which makes us less secure, less prosperous, less united and less influential. It has passed the Commons with acclaim and will pass your Lordships’ House with ease. On these Benches, however, we simply cannot join in what is, in effect, for many people, a collective sigh of relief that we are at least not leaving with no deal at all. Clearly, no deal would have been completely disastrous, but by choosing a deal which prioritises a two-dimensional view of sovereignty over what is best for our prosperity, the Government have made a deliberate choice for which responsibility rests with them alone. This is a Conservative Party treaty, the culmination of a process which began when a Conservative Prime Minister decided to hold a referendum to manage splits in his own party. The Conservatives, with their majority in the Commons, would, even without Labour support, have secured a majority for the treaty and the Bill, and they will be judged on the consequences.

As people in your Lordships’ House know, we on these Benches have opposed Brexit, as we oppose this Bill, because we believe that, on all counts, it is bad for our country. We did not win the argument with the electorate in 2016, but in a democracy, you do not change your fundamental views because at a particular time more people hold different views. You continue to argue for them, in the hope that you might eventually prevail. We continue to believe that, in every respect, Britain is better off at the centre of Europe. This treaty removes us from that position. We will therefore be voting against the Motion that this Bill do now pass, and invite all those across the House who share our vision of Britain’s place at the centre of Europe to join us.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to allow the Bill to pass because it fails to meet the undertakings given to the people of the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister and other members of Her Majesty’s Government as it (1) implements the first free trade deal in history to put up new barriers to trade that will harm businesses and impose additional costs on consumers in the United Kingdom, (2) ends the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, (3) deprives the United Kingdom’s financial services sector of passporting rights, (4) deprives police in the United Kingdom of direct, real-time access to European Union law enforcement databases, (5) ends the United Kingdom’s participation in the Erasmus+ student exchange programme, (6) does not provide a grace period for businesses to prepare for and adapt to the new rules, and (7) will result in lower economic growth and less revenue for key public services; and because Her Majesty’s Government has failed to provide sufficient opportunity for Parliament or the public to scrutinise it properly.”

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as I indicated at Second Reading and in the light of the arguments I advanced then, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper and wish to test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

The original Question was that this Bill do now pass since when an amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, as set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now have to put is that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord be agreed to. The Question will be decided by a remote Division; I instruct the clerk to start it.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judge (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I speak to Clause 43A. Consistent with the Minister’s undertaking last week, this new clause is not tainted with the admitted unlawfulness that marked Clauses 44, 45 and 47. By way of a footnote, in view of the Minister’s observation, I will say that those clauses should never have been there in the first place. As the Minister has explained, this clause is concerned with the issuing of guidance by the Secretary of State in relation to Article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol, and any subsequent implementation of that guidance. Either process must pay full attention to the decisions and recommendations of the joint committee, itself established under Article 164 of the withdrawal agreement. Non-compliance, if it were to arise, would, if necessary, be justiciable.

There is nothing further that I can say in relation to this clause. It seems to be a very sensible solution to a difficult problem.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this is the last knockings on Part 5 of the Bill. It has been a sad and sorry saga from beginning to end. The Government understandably drew huge opprobrium, both domestically and internationally, for being prepared to break the law. They have now withdrawn in the best way they can, but the truth is that they have done so with their tail between their legs. I am extremely pleased that we have reached this point, but sorry that the Government ever put Part 5 in the Bill in the first place and that it needed your Lordships’ House to help kick it out.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord True, has been true to his word. He has produced Clause 43A, which does not contain any element of illegality, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said. I also agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is a sensible provision and we welcome it. It brings to an end a saga for which this country has plainly paid a price. Everybody commenting on the position of the European Union at the moment is saying that the reason it is currently seeking the arbitral and consultation provisions, and the threshold for the ratchet up, is that it does not trust us—and one of the reasons for that is the internal market Bill and its illegality.

EU Trade Agreement

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Frost, as I can now call him, on his introduction and his outstanding service in the negotiations.

The noble Baroness asks why we have not yet reached a conclusion. In our judgment, the European Union has not been as constructive as it might have in the way the negotiations are conducted. I say to the noble Baroness and the House that I hope the legislation will be published imminently, and full time will be allowed in the House to debate the specific and important issues the noble Baroness has raised.

I will have to take advice on her point about legal opinions, and I will respond to her on that. As far as Mr Jones is concerned, the Government obviously respect his views and thank him for his service. But we are clear that we are acting fully in accordance with UK law and the UK’s constitutional norms. Without prolonging the answer, there are precedents, with which I will gladly provide the noble Baroness.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Jonathan Jones, who was the head of the Government Legal Service, resigned this morning because he thought that the Government’s plans to override the Brexit withdrawal agreement were in breach of the Ministerial Code, which obliges Ministers to obey the law, including international law. How can the EU, or any country with which the UK is currently negotiating, have any trust in this Government to follow through on any agreement reached, when they are, in this case, clearly planning to tear up an agreement made only a few months ago?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there is no such intention on the part of the Government. We will continue to work with the European Union in the joint committee to resolve outstanding issues on the protocol. Those of your Lordships who have followed it closely will know we are already committing and spending to undertake some of the requirements of the NI protocol. To de-dramatise this for a moment, let us see if we can get an agreement in the joint committee. I then hope that the safety net that we will be discussing on the Bill will not be necessary.

House of Lords: Size

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Certainly, one positive outcome from the announcement last Thursday was that Jeremy Corbyn recognised that the House, as at present constituted, has a role to play in holding the Government to account and refreshing its membership. My noble friend is right that when Mr Corbyn was campaigning to be leader in 2015, he pledged:

“I don’t think there should be any more appointments to the House of Lords”.


When pressed as to whether he would appoint new Labour Peers as Labour leader, he said:

“I see no case for it”.


I am delighted that sensible heads on the Benches opposite me have persuaded him to change his mind and help refresh those Benches. Speaking personally, I hope that at some point in the future Alan Johnson and Jack Straw might join us.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Institute for Government this morning that Andrew Tyrie cannot be an independent chair of the Competition and Markets Authority and take the Government whip? Will he suggest that he should follow the precedent of the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, and sit as a Cross-Bencher?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Andrew Tyrie was a robustly independent-minded chair of the Treasury Select Committee in the last Parliament and regularly held the Government to account. I spoke to him this morning and I can confirm that he will be sitting as a non-affiliated Peer. I gather that if you want to join the Cross Benches, you have to do a period of quarantine if you have been a member of a party. Since he took up the job as chair of the CMA, he will sit as a non-affiliated Peer and therefore not be in receipt of the Conservative whip.