Brexit: Negotiations

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 15th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, we have not heard from the Cross Benches; I think we ought to hear from them.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Perhaps the Minister can tell me what is meant by the letter from Mr Raab, which said that he could not support the declaration because,

“the regulatory regime proposed for Northern Ireland presents a very real threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom”,

whereas the Statement from the Prime Minister says that,

“the EU proposal for a Northern Ireland-only customs solution has been dropped and replaced by a new UK-wide temporary customs arrangement”.

Which is the situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The House will know that there is a limited amount of time. We ought to hear from the Liberal Democrat Back Benches.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, the Statement says that,

“the broad terms of our future relationship”,

have been agreed in the outline political declaration. How can the Minister justify that assertion when that very short outline is nothing more than a shopping list? There are hardly any verbs in it. For instance, on fisheries, which my noble friend mentioned, it talks about the aim of the,

“establishment of a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares”.

That tells us nothing about the detail, which is a crucial issue. Can the Minister explain how on earth we are going to get from this to something more substantive in the next week or so? What is the process? At the moment there is no flesh on the bones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it is Labour’s turn to speak.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

The Minister lays great stress on what might be summarised as “There is no alternative”—a phrase that we have heard somewhere before. This slogan is patently inaccurate. I know that the Minister would like it to be the case, but is she not obliged to consider alternatives as they are presented?