Business of the House

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Lisvane set down for today shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of Baroness Kidron to 2 hours.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to assist the House. Your Lordships will be aware that, normally on a Wednesday morning, the future business of the House for the following week is published, and yet here we are at almost 20 minutes to 12 on Thursday and we have not yet had sight of the business for next week. This is quite extraordinary and, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. I appreciate that the Prime Minister is highly likely to be making a Statement on Monday that will require a debate within seven days, which may require some change, but I fail to understand why the business for next week is not available. Can the noble Baroness or her colleague the Chief Whip enlighten the House as to the problem?

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

The noble Baroness will be aware that all our business next week has been tabled in the greens and has been available to noble Lords. We shall be publishing Forthcoming Business as soon as we can today because, as she may not be aware, the House of Commons business has just been announced through the business Statement, which we felt was likely to have an impact, and we wanted to discuss it through the usual channels to ensure that the House of Lords business matched. We will be talking through the usual channels as soon as we leave this Chamber in order that we can publish Forthcoming Business as soon as we can afterwards.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, on next week’s business, the House will be aware that a very exciting by-election is taking place at present, the result of which is to be declared next Wednesday. In the past, we have not had the sufficient information that one would normally expect from a returning officer of a by-election, and I wonder whether the Leader of the House could use her authority to arrange with the usual channels that on Wednesday, when the result is announced, key pieces of information such as turnout, the number of votes cast for each candidate, the number of spoilt ballots and all the other details which the House would wish to hear are provided.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that this does not have much relevance to today’s Motion, but his comments have been heard.

Motion agreed.

Leaving the European Union

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the further assurances and clarifications we have received from the European Union on the Northern Ireland protocol.

As a proud unionist, I share the concerns of Members who want to ensure that in leaving the European Union we do not undermine the strength of our own union in the UK. That is why, when the EU tried to insist on a protocol that would carve out Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK’s customs territory, I said no. I secured instead a UK-wide temporary customs arrangement, avoiding both a hard border on the island of Ireland and a customs border down the Irish Sea. I also negotiated substantial commitments in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration to do everything possible to prevent the backstop ever being needed and to ensure that, if it were, it would be a temporary arrangement. But listening to the debate before Christmas, it was clear that we needed to go further, so I returned to Brussels to faithfully and firmly reflect the concerns of this House.

The conclusions of December’s Council went further in addressing our concerns. They included reaffirming the EU’s determination to work speedily to establish, by 31 December 2020, alternative arrangements so that the backstop will not need to be triggered. They underlined that if the backstop were nevertheless to be triggered, it would indeed apply temporarily. They committed that, in such an event, the EU would use its best endeavours to continue to negotiate and conclude as soon as possible a subsequent agreement that would replace the backstop. And they gave a new assurance that negotiations on the future relationship could start immediately after the UK’s withdrawal.

Since the Council, and throughout the Christmas and new year period, I have spoken to a number of European leaders, and there have been further discussions with the EU to seek further assurances alongside the Council conclusions. Today, I have published the outcome of these further discussions, with an exchange of letters between the UK Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and European Council. The letter from President Tusk confirms what I said in the House before Christmas: namely, that the assurances in the European Council conclusions have legal standing in the EU.

My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has also written to me today confirming that, in the light of the joint response from the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission, these conclusions,

‘would have legal force in international law’,

and setting out his opinion, ‘reinforced’ by today’s letter,

‘that the balance of risks favours the conclusion that it is unlikely that the EU will wish to rely on the implementation of the backstop provisions’.

Further, he writes that it is therefore his judgment that,

‘the current draft Withdrawal Agreement now represents the only politically practicable and available means of securing our exit from the European Union’.

I know that some Members would ideally like a unilateral exit mechanism or a hard time limit to the backstop. I explained this to the EU and tested these points in negotiations, but the EU would not agree to this because it fears that such a provision could allow the UK to leave the backstop at any time without any other arrangements in place and require a hard border to be erected between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I have been very clear with the EU that this is not something we would ever countenance—the UK is steadfast in its commitment to the Belfast agreement and would never allow a return to a hard border—but it is not enough simply to say this. Both sides also need to take steps to avoid a hard border when the UK is outside the EU. Failing to do so would place businesses on the island of Ireland in an impossible position, having to choose between costly new checks and procedures that would disrupt their supply chains or breaking the law.

So we have the backstop as a last resort, but both the Taoiseach and I have consistently said that the best way to avoid a hard border is through the future relationship—that is the sustainable solution—and that neither of us wants to use the backstop. So, since the Council, we have been looking at commitments that would ensure we get our future relationship or alternative arrangements in place by the end of the implementation period, so that there will be no need to enter the backstop and no need for any fear that there will be a hard border. That is why, in the first of the further assurances that it has provided today, the EU has committed to begin exploratory talks on the detailed legal provisions of the future relationship as soon as this Parliament has approved the deal and the withdrawal agreement has been signed. The EU has been explicit that this can happen immediately after this House votes through the agreement.

If this House approves the deal tomorrow, it would give us almost two years to complete the next phase of the negotiations, and of course we would have the option to extend the implementation period, if further time were needed, for either one or two years. It is my absolute conviction that we can turn the political declaration into legal text in that time, avoiding the need for the backstop altogether.

These letters also make clear that these talks should give,

‘particular urgency to discussion of ideas, including the use of all available facilitative arrangements and technologies, for replacing the backstop with permanent arrangements’,

and, furthermore, that those arrangements,

‘are not required to replicate’—

the backstop ‘provisions in any respect’. So, contrary to the fears of some honourable Members, the EU will not simply insist that the backstop is the only way to avoid a hard border. It has agreed to discuss technological solutions and any alternative means of delivering on this objective, and to get on with this as a priority in the next phase of negotiations.

Secondly, the EU has now committed to a fast-track process to bring our future trade deal into force once it has been agreed. If there is any delay in ratification, the Commission has now said it will recommend provisionally applying the relevant parts of the agreement, so that we would not need to enter the backstop. Such a provisional application process saved four years on the EU-Korea deal and could prevent any delays in ratification by other member state parliaments from delaying our deal coming into force.

Thirdly, the EU has provided absolute clarity on the explicit linkage between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, and made that link clear in the way the documents are presented. I know that some colleagues are worried about an imbalance between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, because the EU cannot reach a legal agreement with us on the future relationship until we are a third country, but the link between them means the commitments of one cannot be banked without the commitments of the other. The EU has been clear that they come as a package. Bad faith by either side in negotiating the legal instruments that will deliver the future relationship laid out in the political declaration would be a breach of their legal obligations under the withdrawal agreement.

Fourthly, the exchange of letters confirms that the UK can unilaterally deliver all of the commitments that we made last week to safeguard the interests of the people and businesses of Northern Ireland and their position in our precious union, for it gives clear answers to address some questions that have been raised since the deal was reached—that the deal means no change to the arrangements that underpin north-south co-operation in the Belfast agreement; that Stormont will have a lock on any new laws the EU proposes should be added to the backstop; and that the UK can give a restored Northern Ireland Executive a seat at the table on the joint committee overseeing the deal.

President Juncker says explicitly in his letter that the backstop,

‘would represent a suboptimal trading arrangement for both sides’.

We have spoken at length about why we want to avoid the backstop, but it is not in the EU’s interests either, for this backstop gives the UK tariff-free access to the EU’s market, and it does so with no free movement of people, no financial contribution, no requirement to follow most of the level playing field rules and no need to allow EU boats any access to our waters for fishing. Furthermore, under these arrangements, UK authorities in Northern Ireland would clear goods for release into the EU single market with no further checks or controls. That is unprecedented and means the EU relying on the UK for the functioning of its own market, so the EU will not want this backstop to come into force—and the exchange of letters today makes clear that if it did, the EU would do all it could to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.

Nevertheless, I fully understand that these new assurances still will not go as far as some would like. I recognise that some Members wanted to see changes to the withdrawal agreement, a unilateral exit mechanism from the backstop, an end date or rejecting the backstop altogether, although it should be said that that would have risked other EU member states attempting to row back on the significant wins we have already achieved, such as on control over our waters or on the sovereignty of Gibraltar. But the simple truth is this: the EU was not prepared to agree to this, and rejecting the backstop altogether means no deal. Whatever version of the future relationship you might want to see—from Norway to Canada, to any number of variations—all of them would require a withdrawal agreement and any withdrawal agreement would contain a backstop. That is not going to change, however the House votes tomorrow. To those who think we should reject this deal in favour of no deal because we cannot get every assurance we want, I ask: what would a no-deal Brexit do to strengthen the hand of those campaigning for Scottish independence—or, indeed, those demanding a border poll in Northern Ireland? Surely that is the real threat to our union.

With just 74 days until 29 March, the consequences of voting against this deal tomorrow are becoming ever clearer. With no deal, we would have no implementation period, no security partnership, no guarantees for UK citizens overseas, and no certainty for businesses and workers such as those I met in Stoke this morning. We would see changes to everyday life in Northern Ireland that would put the future of our union at risk. And if, rather than leaving with no deal, this House blocked Brexit, that would be a subversion of our democracy, saying to the people we were elected to serve that we were unwilling to do what they had instructed.

So I say to Members on all sides of this House—whatever you may have previously concluded—over these next 24 hours, give this deal a second look. No, it is not perfect. And yes, it is a compromise. But when the history books are written, people will look at the decision of this House tomorrow and ask: did we deliver on the country’s vote to leave the European Union? Did we safeguard our economy, our security and our union? Or did we let the British people down? I say we should deliver for the British people and get on with building a brighter future for our country by backing this deal tomorrow. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. I was happy to have the Statement repeated, on the basis that it might contain something new—which speakers in our debate might wish to take into account in their subsequent speeches. However, it is now obvious that the Prime Minister’s Statement says nothing new of substance whatsoever and therefore I do not intend to delay the debate further by commenting on it. I hope that, on that basis, other noble Lords will curb their enthusiasm for asking questions, so that we can get back to the debate as soon as possible.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lord for their brief comments. I shall attempt to keep my comments brief, too. I will quote a couple of elements of the Attorney General’s advice, as the noble Baroness did. The Attorney-General says in his letter today:

“I agree that in the light of this response, the Council’s conclusions of 13 December 2018 would have legal force in international law and thus be relevant and cognisable in the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement”.


He says also that, in his judgment,

“the current draft Withdrawal Agreement now represents the only politically practicable”,

but also the only,

“available means of securing our exit from the European Union”.

The letter also makes clear that there are alternatives to the backstop that can be considered. Therefore, progress has been made and there have been further reassurances from the EU. As the Statement makes very clear, the Prime Minister is well aware that those may not satisfy everyone, but progress has been made.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, if the House of Commons rejects the deal tomorrow, as seems very probable, would my noble friend agree that any consequential outcome other than crashing out without a deal—which seems to be an outcome that has no parliamentary majority—will require more time? In those circumstances, would she agree that, in the event of the deal being rejected tomorrow by the House of Commons, urgent steps will be taken to persuade the European 27 to extend the exit date—or, if that is not possible, to revoke Article 50?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We have been clear that it is not our policy to withdraw or revoke Article 50. However, the Prime Minister has been very clear that we are focusing on winning the vote tomorrow. Our intention has always been to respond quickly and provide certainty on the way forward in the event that tomorrow’s vote does not pass, both in terms of setting out our next steps and any subsequent vote, and that is what we will do.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister says:

“With no deal we would have no implementation period, no security partnership, no guarantees for UK citizens overseas, and no certainty for businesses and workers”.


In those circumstances, why does she not rule out no deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord will be aware that in the current situation no deal is the default position if a deal is not agreed. We are having a vote tomorrow, with a good deal on the table for a strong relationship between the UK and the EU. It is the only deal the EU says is on the table. That is why the Prime Minister and all colleagues are working hard to make sure that the deal passes. We do not want no deal. There is a deal on the table. I urge MPs to vote for it.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware—she probably is not—that this morning I visited an exhibition which contained a book that included Dante’s “Map of Hell”, and that it bore a strong resemblance to the present state of the other place? Does she not agree that in the period of paralysis that seems to exist in the other place, the real emphasis needs to be on showing that the withdrawal agreement is only a step-by-step part of a very long process? It took us 45 years to become entangled with the European Union, and it is bound to take us years to fully disentangle ourselves without doing immense damage to our economy. So will she advise her friends to put more emphasis on the fact that this is a journey? It is a beginning, there are many difficulties and opportunities ahead, and it is step by step. Those who think that we can with one leap be free are showing that they are long on opinion but very short on experience.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend and I may well search out that book.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, to what extent will any delay be held hostage by the changing political face on the continent, including any changes in the Commission?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, I am not going to prejudge what will happen in the House of Commons tomorrow. I am not in a position to do so. We will be working hard to win the vote so that we can deliver on the result of the referendum and implement a strong partnership between the EU and the UK going forward, and a withdrawal agreement that will ensure a smooth exit from the EU.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I do not often agree with the leader of the Lib Dems in this House, but I have to say that the Statement is hardly worth commenting on. Nothing has changed. Despite letters of reassurance from the European Union, there are no legally binding assurances, as the Prime Minister talked about and promised in December. In fact, nothing has changed. We have often said as a party that we want a balanced and fair approach to leaving the European Union. Unfortunately in this situation, we have also said continually that we will not support anything that separates Northern Ireland from the rest of this United Kingdom. That has been our message continually, both in this House and to the Prime Minister. So as far as we as a party in this House are concerned, nothing has changed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am sorry that that is the view of the noble Lord. The exchange of letters does set out four key assurances. We believe that progress has been made. I repeat, as we have repeated constantly over the past few months, that neither the UK nor the EU wants the backstop to happen. It is an insurance policy. We and the EU have been very clear that there are alternatives to the backstop, and the House of Commons will be given a chance to discuss those if we do not have our future relationship in place—which we are all working hard to do and which the EU has committed again in these letters to work towards.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has suggested that the biggest threat to the unity of the United Kingdom would be to have a second referendum. Will she reflect on the fact that actually the biggest threat to the United Kingdom would be if the Government were to create the circumstances in which those who wished to break up the United Kingdom were better placed to win such a referendum, particularly if the Government followed a course of action that was opposed by the people of Scotland and the people of Northern Ireland? Does she recall that there is a thing called unintended consequences? However much the Government wish—as we in this House wish—to retain the unity of the United Kingdom, they are in grave danger of creating circumstances in which, if a referendum is held in other parts of the UK, that unity may be put under threat.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord is right—which is exactly why the Prime Minister has been working constantly and hard to get a deal on the table that both preserves the unity of the UK and allows us a strong relationship with the EU. That is the deal that is on the table. We are now asking MPs to vote for that deal so that we can move forward and start focusing on the strong future relationship with the EU that we want so that we can develop that partnership.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, on the subject of the threat to the United Kingdom, does my noble friend recall that the party with the biggest percentage of its supporters voting for Brexit was the Scottish National Party? The threat to the United Kingdom comes from this deal, which purports to allow one part of the United Kingdom to be treated differently by Brussels from the rest. My noble friend talks about the need for the backstop and for this deal because of the need to avoid a hard border. The Irish Government have said that they do not want a hard border and would never implement one; the Commission has said that it does not want a hard border and would never implement one; and the Government have said that they do not want a hard border and would never implement one. So who exactly is going to implement this hard border?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank my noble friend. As the Statement makes clear, the backstop is an insurance policy. None of us has an intention to use it and so we have found other mechanisms. If we do not get the future relationship in place by the end of December 2020, which is what we all want, the EU has made it very clear that we need an insurance policy to make sure that what we all agree that we do not want—a hard border—cannot and does not happen. My noble friend will understand that on 30 March Brexit will create a wholly new situation, which is that for the first time the Northern Ireland/Ireland border will become an external frontier of the EU’s single market and customs union. This poses significant challenges which we are attempting to address.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, in expressing the hope that the other place will endorse the Prime Minister’s deal, I revert to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. If the House of Commons does not approve this deal tomorrow, it will be utterly impossible to deliver on a March deadline.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, I am not prejudging the outcome of tomorrow’s vote. I have also said that it has always been our intention to respond quickly and provide certainty if the vote is lost, and that is what we will do about our next steps.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Hailsham is right and the House of Commons votes down the deal tomorrow, the default position is no deal. Does my noble friend accept that no deal is much more damaging to the EU than it is to us and, in addition, that we would not pay it £39 billion? Does she not expect really quite major concessions from the EU at the last minute—the 11th hour—possibly way into March?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I can only reiterate what I have said to noble Lords on many occasions. We believe that this is a good deal. We want MPs to vote for that deal. That is what we will continue to work towards. If the vote is lost tomorrow, we will return with our next steps.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, the backstop fundamentally undermines Northern Ireland’s position in the United Kingdom and runs contrary to the principles of consent contained in the Belfast agreement. When the Prime Minister delayed the vote in December, she said that she was going to get legally binding assurances. Does the Leader of the House agree that this letter is certainly not legally binding?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The EU and, indeed, the Attorney-General have said that these letters do have legal force.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, on that point, is it not clear that the Attorney-General’s letter is a political letter? It is about the political risk—it says that the balance of political risk is in this way. But, on the legality of the backstop, the Leader did not refer to the fact that the Attorney-General wrote in his letter that,

“they do not alter the fundamental meanings of its provisions as I advised them to be on 13 November 2018”.

In other words, what has been obtained has no legal effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The letter does say that, but it also says that,

“the Council’s conclusions of 13 December 2018 would have legal force in international law and thus be relevant and cognisable in the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement”.

[Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House confirm the veracity of what my noble friend Lord Howard said in our debate before Christmas: namely, that we have an unfettered right to leave the European Union under Article 50 but that we need the agreement of the other member states to leave the backstop?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As we have made very clear, neither the EU nor the UK wants the backstop. We do not want to go into it. The letter reiterates once again other mechanisms such as looking at facilitative technology and extending the implementation period. Other options may be available. Parliament will be given the right to discuss and vote on the option it wants if we need it—but we are committed to implementing the future relationship by the end of December 2020 so that none of those situations comes to pass. We will focus on that.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, on the issue of legal force, referred to in the Attorney-General’s letter, has either the EU or Her Majesty’s Government sought an advisory opinion from the European Court?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I stand by the letter published today by the Attorney-General.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement uses the term “temporary” a great deal. Noble Lords will be aware that income tax was introduced as a temporary measure in 1799—and I still live in hope. Returning to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, neither we nor the Irish want a hard border, and apparently the European Union does not want one, either—so who will erect this hard border if the Prime Minister’s tireless efforts do not bear fruit tomorrow? I want to know in which direction to point my tanks. Nobody wants an Irish border.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord is right that absolutely nobody wants a hard border in Ireland, but the EU has been consistently clear in discussions that it wants an insurance policy. We have been consistently clear that we want to abide by the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. As we have said, the backstop is an insurance policy that none of us wishes to use. As has been stated by the EU and ourselves, we will use our best endeavours and work in good faith to make sure that that does not happen.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement read by the Leader of the House. My question is simple: I know that there is another 24 hours to go, but what steps do the Government intend to give the other place? At the moment, the EU sees us as part of it. The difficulty of negotiating from within is that we cannot give anything away until we have left. The EU has a very legalistic view of what it is to be a member. What will the Government do to explain that this creates a difficulty?

Furthermore, what assurances will the Government give to create better trust between our four nations and the European Union? At the moment, as I heard in the debate, it sounds as though we have not taken on board the fact that this is purely about getting out, beginning negotiations and setting the parameters of the future conversation. What will the Government do to get it across that this is not ultimately about the final deal?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That is absolutely correct. Until now, we have been talking largely about the withdrawal agreement and the divorce settlement. In the letter published today, one assurance is that the EU has committed to beginning discussions straightaway on a fast-track process to bring our future trade deal into force once it has been agreed. It has also made an explicit link between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, which sets out the parameters of our future relationship. So if the vote is won tomorrow, we can move on to the next stage—which, frankly, is what the British people want us to do.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, although nobody wants a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, is it not the case that if we leave without any deal whatever, there will automatically be a hard border?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As we have said, we are working hard to get the deal through for that exact reason. No deal would create issues in Ireland, which is why we have been working so hard to ensure that we can move forward. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will make the case in the Commons once again for people to support the deal so that we can move on to the future relationship and the strong partnership we want between the UK and the EU.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister help the House by describing the implications of the most favoured nation provisions of the World Trade Organization—of which both we and the European Union are members—which do not permit us to not charge tariffs on any border with a country with which we are not in a free trade or customs union relationship at the time? If she explained that, it would answer quite a lot of the questions that have been asked.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We do believe that we can do better than trading under WTO rules, which would mean tariffs and quotas on British goods going to the EU. For instance, trading on WTO rules would mean a 10% tariff on cars we sold to the EU and average tariffs of more than 35% on dairy products. That is why we are focused on achieving a broader, deeper and stronger economic partnership with the EU—a result flowing from the political declaration if the deal is passed tomorrow.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, a hard border is defined as a situation where the conditions for going one way are different from the conditions for going the other way. That can happen without anybody wanting it if they wish to have different conditions. Therefore, the point of this is to ensure that future arrangements at the Irish border will be such that the conditions are the same whether you are going from north to south or from south to north.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend. We do not want a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is why we urge MPs to support the deal.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not right for the European Union to want to protect its borders after Brexit? Did it not put the backstop in place because the Prime Minister had failed to find an alternative?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

No. As we have said, both the EU and the UK have made it clear that other alternatives are on the table, such as an extension of the implementation period or technological developments. We have both committed to getting our future relationship agreed by the end of December 2020, which will mean that neither the backstop nor any of the other options will be needed. The EU and the UK have both made it clear that they want to avoid a backstop, which is why we have other options on the table. We need to get the withdrawal agreement agreed so that we can move forward and look towards our future relationship. We want to look to the future, not backwards.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, the Leader told the House that nobody wants the backstop, but the EU is demanding that the backstop be put in place as an insurance policy. Surely then the EU’s purpose is to hold the backstop as a threat over the head of the United Kingdom to ensure compliance with EU demands in further negotiations.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I do not agree. The backstop we have negotiated gives the UK tariff-free access to the EU market without the free movement of people, without financial contributions, without having to follow most of the level playing-field rules and without allowing the EU to have access to our waters. That is not something that the EU wants.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, have the Government read the paper published yesterday by Economists for Free Trade entitled “No deal is the best deal for Britain”? If not, will they do so and answer it publicly? Clearly, the scare stories that have been put around about what will happen if there is no deal are complete nonsense, to put it mildly.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I can only reiterate that we believe that there is a good deal on the table, which MPs will vote on tomorrow. I hope that they support it so that we can move forward.

Business of the House

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That the debates in Grand Committee on the motions in the names of Lord Nash and Baroness Helic set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That Standing Order 30 (No Lord to speak more than once to a Motion) be suspended in respect of the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Callanan relating to section 13(1)(c) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to enable those members who spoke to the motion in the same terms on Wednesday 5 or Thursday 6 December to do so again.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. In doing so, I should say that the Motion, if agreed to unamended, would allow those noble Lords who spoke on 5 or 6 December, to do so again if they so wish. Given the way the previous debate was abruptly curtailed, before any of the winding speeches had been heard, and following representation from Members on all sides of the House, who spoke previously, it would seem to me to be the sensible thing to do. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Business of the House

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That the debates on the motions in the names of Lord Moynihan and Baroness Neville-Rolfe set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish all noble Lords and staff of the House a very merry Christmas.

Motion agreed.

Privileges and Conduct Committee

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

I suggest that the unhappy experience in the case of Lord Lester confirms that in future we should follow that advice in relation to our disciplinary procedures, certainly in relation to complaints of this nature. There should be an appeal from the Commissioner for Standards not to one of our committees but to an independent appeal body composed of retired judges and distinguished lay people, and the House should have no role other than to implement the decision of that body. Independence—and the appearance of independence—and the confidence which this House needs to instil in complainants and in the wider public, so require. We cannot continue with a system in which the Privileges and Conduct Committee passes judgment on a Member of this House, this House then debates the matter, and the committee and this House then continue to debate the matter until the committee gets its way.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak during the debate on 15 November, nor did the leaders of the other main political groups, despite all of us being members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee who unanimously supported its conclusions. We felt then, as now, that whether or not to endorse the committee’s report is not a party-political decision but a House decision. However, as Leader of this House, I feel that today I should speak briefly.

As the Senior Deputy Speaker has said, to an extent the recommendations of the committee’s report have been overtaken by Lord Lester’s decision to retire from the House last Wednesday. But it remains important for us to come to a conclusion on the Motion before the House in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McFall. For my part, I fully support it. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is not intending to speak today, but he has asked me to make it clear that the report has his full support too.

I and my fellow members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee believe that the commissioner carefully and methodically followed the procedures set out for her by our Code of Conduct, which I am confident comply with the procedures of natural justice and fairness. Our commissioner is both impartial and independent. She sought and received instruction from the sub-committee in the way she approached the investigation. She ensured that Lord Lester was aware of all the points made by the complainant, and had time to respond to them, and she carefully evaluated all the evidence and explained why she reached her conclusions. A great deal of work went into the investigation of the complaint and into ensuring both parties were given a fair opportunity to comment, and that is only right: two people’s reputations were at stake.

During the debate on 15 November, much was said about the process followed by the commissioner not being fair, because it did not provide for cross-examination, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has repeated. The absence of cross-examination does not mean that the process followed was unfair. Our code provides for an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial system to determine breaches. What is necessary—and what our code provides—is an impartial adjudicator who takes full statements from all parties, gives each party notice of the case made by the others, gives all parties the opportunity to respond and carefully reaches decisions by thorough testing and evaluation of all available evidence. That is what our commissioner did.

As a House, we should show that we support the processes that we ourselves have put in place and that we are capable of regulating ourselves. I am sure that I am not alone in being very concerned at the letter sent by 74 well-esteemed staff of this House expressing their disappointment in the outcome of our previous debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, this has not been a happy experience for any of us, but I truly hope that following our further debate today, noble Lords will support the report of the committee.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not present at the previous debate. Ironically, I was in India speaking to a gathering of senior judges about the failure of justice systems to deliver justice for women and the underlying problems, sometimes with the law but more often with attitudes, that persist in our societies to the detriment of women.

Had I been here, I would not have voted. I would have recused myself because of my friendship with Anthony Lester. I have known him since I was a young barrister. I have huge admiration for him, and my fondness for him and his family is considerable, but we do not sit in judgment in cases involving a friend or a colleague. No juror would sit in a case where a friend was in the dock; no judge would sit in such a case. That is because friendships colour our judgment. We do not want to think ill of a friend. We see their pain and feel their humiliation. We hear their side of the story and want to believe it. That is in the nature of friendship; we are partisan.

That was why we created in this House an independent commissioner. It was because we recognised that the risks of partisanship were great. We recognised that institutions often protect their own, as we had seen the scandals around the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the BBC, the police and different aspects of the establishment. Reflecting on all that, we created the current rules.

I ask the same question as the Senior Deputy Speaker: when the previous debate took place, who was in the House to make the case for the complainant, to speak as her friends and to speak of her character and achievements? That was why, when I read the Hansard of the debate, I was covered in gloom: it was an ill judged and misconceived debate. Although it was presented as being about process, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others expressed views that implied they found such an accusation difficult to believe of their friend. That is how we all feel about our friends. The debate was presented as being about process, but it was not about justice.

All the tropes that imply that women are somehow not be to be relied on were presented to this House; for example, about delay. We have learned that delay is not a reason for not believing somebody, especially when they have experienced some transgression of a sexual kind. Things were said about writing something nice in a book about somebody who might have done something inappropriate to you, but probably every woman in this House will tell you how you get on with business after somebody has behaved inappropriately and try to normalise it so that your relationships can continue, especially if your promotion, your Bill, which you are trying to get through Parliament, or your pupillage might rely on the good will of the person who has crossed the line.

I want to remind the House of the terrible folly that has blighted this distressing business in the way that it has been discussed in the media and in this House: the confusion between criminal trial rules and disciplinary processes. This is not a criminal process—I want to emphasise that to many of the older lawyers in this House who do not seem to have kept up with the times and the disappointment that women feel about how legal processes fail them. This is a disciplinary process. Talk of proof beyond reasonable doubt, rigorous cross-examination and the need for counsel is wholly inappropriate.

Let us remember why: we are here dealing with an imbalance of power. That is the basis of the complaint. Women are complaining that their working lives and professional interactions are blighted by sexual harassment. There will be few women in this House who have not experienced it at some point in their careers. Many of us just learned to brush it off and get on with things but the young do not accept that any more; they want proper processes and they do not want it to be dealt with in the way that has been described by many of our older lawyers. Young women will not come forward to make complaints about powerful men if they are going to be subjected to Old Bailey-style quizzing in the presence of the very Lord they are complaining about.

Let us imagine that it is a young librarian in this House who has been groped by a Peer. Is she really expected to face him or his well-heeled lawyer? How do we create equality of arms when we have a Lord able to secure the professional services of a top QC and the young librarian can afford no such grandeur? Do we find some low-level lawyer and pay him or her out of the public purse when we are cutting legal aid so much to the bone that most people are having difficulty finding representation? Could we justify it? It was for all these reasons that Members of this House devised a system in keeping with most disciplinary procedures, using the inquisitorial method, not the traditional adversarial method. That means an independent assessor, arbitrator or commissioner investigating the complaint, sensitively testing its veracity, applying the same careful, probing attention to the account of the person complained of and then allowing each the opportunity to respond to the account of the other. The commissioner then reaches a conclusion on whether the complaint has probity.

I have sat in that role on a number of occasions. She has the advantage over any of us in that she has heard the live accounts of both parties. We invented this process without complaint at the time. I have no doubt that it could be improved and, as we go forward, I think it should be. Because of my own experience in these cases, sitting as the commissioner did, I suggest that it is better to sit with another assessor, as I usually do. I have always felt that I benefited from the help of others in evaluating credibility. The commissioner in this case has been subjected to wholly unjust criticism. She is a very experienced solicitor and we chose her carefully after a competitive process. She has dealt, in her 40 years’ experience, day in, day out, with the stuff of humankind, sitting as a judge in mental health matters. She is not an acquisitions and mergers lawyer, a commercial contracts lawyer, or someone dealing with fine points of law in the Supreme Court, but she has dealt, day in, day out, with the stuff of human frailty—human falls from grace and issues of dishonesty and honesty. We burdened her with the responsibility of judgment on our behalf and she deserves our respect, rather than what she was treated to.

I shall mention one area where I think she may have been wrong in law. She took the view that the allegations stood or fell together. While she may have felt handicapped by Lord Lester’s position that all the matters were fabricated, it was quite possible, for example, that there was inappropriate conduct and an unwelcome sexual pass but that the business of having a discussion about coming into this House, perhaps sitting on the Cross Benches—a discussion that many of us might have had with talented persons we thought might have contributed to this House—might have been misunderstood. The two may have become conflated, so to have felt that the allegations all stood or fell together seems to me a mistake. Evidence is not a seamless role: you can be absolutely truthful and right about one thing and mistaken about something else. The Privileges Committee, however, agreed with the commissioner’s decision and this House will have to make a decision too.

I suggest to the House that those who are friends of Lord Lester, like me, should not be voting. I will not vote. It would not be appropriate: I am conflicted between my friendship with Lord Lester and my desire to see greater justice for women. I believe that we still have not got the system for women right.

Before I finish, I want to say that I think the suspension of four years was too long, but that boat has sailed now that Lord Lester has resigned.

EU Council

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on last week’s European Council. Before turning to Brexit, let me touch on two significant conclusions from the other business of the Council. First, we expressed our utmost concern over the escalation that we have seen in the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov and Russia’s continued violations of international law. We agreed to roll over economic sanctions against Russia and stand ready to further strengthen our support, in particular for the affected areas of Ukraine.

Secondly, we also agreed to work together on tackling the spread of deliberate, large-scale and systematic disinformation, including as part of hybrid warfare. On this, I outlined some of the world-leading work that the UK is doing in this field. I was clear that, after we have left the European Union, the UK will continue to work closely with our European partners to uphold the international rules-based system and to keep all our people safe. That is why it is right that our Brexit deal includes the deepest security partnership that has ever been agreed with the EU.

At this Council, I faithfully and firmly reflected the concerns of this House over the Northern Ireland backstop. I explained that the assurances that we had already agreed with the EU were insufficient for this House and that we had to go further in showing that we never want to use the backstop and that, if it is used, it must be a temporary arrangement. Some of the resulting exchanges at this Council were robust, but I make no apology for standing up for the interests of this House and those of our whole United Kingdom.

In response, the EU 27 published a series of conclusions. They made it clear that it is their,

‘firm determination to work speedily on a subsequent agreement that establishes by 31 December 2020 alternative arrangements, so that the backstop will not need to be triggered’.

The House will forgive me, but I think that this bears repeating:

‘the backstop will not need to be triggered’.

They underlined that,

‘if the backstop were nevertheless to be triggered, it would apply temporarily’,

and said that, in this event, the EU,

‘would use its best endeavours to negotiate and conclude expeditiously a subsequent agreement that would replace the backstop’.

They gave a new assurance in relation to the future partnership with the UK, to make it even less likely that the backstop would ever be needed, by stating that the EU,

‘stands ready to embark on preparations immediately after signature of the Withdrawal Agreement to ensure that negotiations can start as soon as possible after the UK’s withdrawal’.

In these conclusions, in their statements at the Council and in their private meetings with me, my fellow EU leaders could not have been clearer: they do not want to use this backstop and want to agree the best possible future relationship with us. There is no plot to keep us in the backstop. Indeed, President Macron said on Friday that,

‘we can clarify and reassure … the backstop is not our objective, it is not a durable solution and nobody is trying to lock the UK into the backstop’.

As formal conclusions from a European Council, these commitments have legal status and should be welcomed. They go further than the EU has ever gone previously in trying to address the concerns of this House. Of course, they sit on top of the commitments that we have already negotiated in relation to the backstop, including ensuring that the customs element is UK-wide; that both sides are legally committed to using best endeavours to have our new relationship in place before the end of the implementation period; that if the new relationship is not ready we can choose to extend the implementation period instead of the backstop coming into force; that if the backstop comes in, we can use alternative arrangements, not just the future relationship, to get out of it; that the treaty is clear that the backstop can only ever be temporary, and that there is an explicit termination clause.

But I know that this House is still deeply uncomfortable about the backstop. I understand that and want us to go further still in the reassurances that we secure. Discussions with my EU partners, including Presidents Tusk and Juncker and others, have shown that further clarification following the Council’s conclusions is in fact possible. So discussions are continuing to explore further political and legal assurances. We are also looking closely at new ways of empowering the House of Commons to ensure that any provision for a backstop has democratic legitimacy and to place its own obligations on the Government to ensure that the backstop cannot be in place indefinitely.

It is now only just over 14 weeks until the UK leaves the EU. I know that many Members of this House are concerned that we need to take a decision soon. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House will set out business on Thursday in the usual way, but I can confirm today that we intend to return to the meaningful vote debate in the week commencing 7 January and hold the vote the following week.

When we have the vote, Members will need to reflect carefully on what is in the best interests of our country. I know that there are a range of very strongly held personal views on this issue across the House and I respect all of them. But expressing our personal views is not what we are here to do. We asked the British people to take this decision, with 472 current Members of this House voting for the referendum in June 2015 and just 32 voting against. The British people responded by instructing us to leave the European Union. Similarly, 438 current Members of this House voted to trigger Article 50 to set the process of our departure in motion, with only 85 of today’s Members voting against. Now we must honour our duty to finish the job.

I know that this is not everyone’s perfect deal. It is a compromise. But if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we risk leaving the EU with no deal. Of course, we have prepared for no deal, and tomorrow the Cabinet will discuss the next phase of ensuring that we are ready for that scenario. But let us not risk the jobs, services and security of the people whom we serve by turning our backs on an agreement with our neighbours that honours the referendum and provides for a smooth and orderly exit. Avoiding no deal is only possible if we can reach an agreement or if we abandon Brexit entirely and—as I said in the debate earlier this month—do not imagine that, if we vote this down, a different deal is going to miraculously appear. If you want proof, look at the conclusions of this Council. As President Juncker said, it is the ‘best deal possible’ and the ‘only deal possible’. Any proposal for the future relationship, whether Norway, Canada, or any other variety that has been mentioned, would require agreeing this withdrawal agreement. The leader of the Opposition, as well as some others, are trying to pretend they could do otherwise. This is a fiction.

Finally, let us not break faith with the British people by trying to stage another referendum. Another vote would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy that our democracy does not deliver. Another vote would likely leave us no further forward than the last, and another vote would further divide our country at the very moment we should be working to unite it. Let us not follow the leader of the Opposition in thinking about what gives him the best chance of forcing a general election. For at this critical moment in our history, we should be thinking not about our party’s interests but about the national interest. Let us a find a way to come together and work together in the national interest to see this Brexit through.

I will work tirelessly over these new few weeks to fulfil my responsibility as Prime Minister to find a way forwards. Over the last two weeks, I have met quite a number of colleagues and I am happy to continue doing so on this important issue so we can fulfil our responsibilities to the British people, so that together we can take back control of our borders, laws and money, while protecting the jobs, the security and the integrity of our precious United Kingdom; so that together we can move on to finalising the future relationship with the European Union and the trade deals with the rest of the world that can fuel our prosperity for years to come; so that together we can get this Brexit done and shift the national focus to our domestic priorities—investing in our NHS, our schools and housing, tackling the injustices that so many still face, and building a country that truly works for everyone. For these are the ways in which, together, this House will best serve the interests of the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The following seems to me an accurate summary of the current situation:

“Downing Street has stopped selling the Prime Minister’s flawed deal. Instead we have displacement activity designed to distract from last week’s failed renegotiation and a concerted attempt to discredit every plausible alternative as they run down the clock. This is not in the national interest”.


These are not my words but those of Sam Gyimah, until recently a member of the Government, speaking earlier this afternoon. They sum up the Statement and the current impasse precisely. The Prime Minister did not achieve anything of substance at last week’s Council and is offering no prospect of any change to the backstop provision which stands the remotest chance of assuaging her opponents on her own Benches, far less any opposition MPs. The arithmetic in the Commons is the same as it was last week and will remain so, even if the Prime Minister gets one or two further general, vague assurances from the EU in the coming weeks.

In these circumstances, to wait four weeks for any meaningful vote in the Commons—almost 30% of the time remaining until 29 March—is immensely irresponsible and clearly not in the national interest. I hope the Leader of the House will be able to tell us what the Government’s timetable is for the resumed debate on the deal in your Lordships’ House and when she expects us to be able to vote on it.

When we had our unfinished debate on the Government’s deal, I said that an election would fail to clarify matters because it would be fought by three Conservative Parties. I must apologise to the House. There are not three views of Brexit in the Conservative Party. There are now four different views being expounded by members of the Cabinet alone on the airwaves and in the press. Collective responsibility has completely disappeared, for the truth is that the Government have collapsed. On Brexit, there is no Cabinet agreement on anything. Beyond Brexit, as the Select Committee chairs forcefully pointed out over the weekend, there is no progress on any domestic policy reforms at all, because Brexit is, in their words “sucking the life out of the Government”. In normal circumstances, the Opposition would be rampant. They certainly have every justification for calling a vote of no confidence this week.

I gather that the Opposition are indeed now tabling some sort of vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, but it seems unclear quite what it means. I am tempted to say, “Nothing much new there, then”.

Let us see whether there is a substantive no confidence vote. If there were, whatever its outcome, it would have the advantage of narrowing down the options we now face. Of all of them, the Prime Minister has today decided particularly to attack the concept of a referendum. In her Statement, she says that such a vote would be extremely damaging,

“because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy that our democracy does not deliver”.

But that is precisely the point. The Prime Minister’s deal—indeed, any conceivable deal—could not deliver on the promises of the 2016 referendum, which were grounded in fantasy, not reality. That is why people are so disillusioned, why a majority now want to have the final say, and why they say that they would reject her deal and vote to remain if given such a say. By delaying a meaningful vote for four weeks, the Prime Minister is merely delaying the inevitable. She really should just get on with it.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lord for their comments.

The noble Baroness asked about assurances at this summit. As the Statement made clear, there were a number of assurances in the EU Council conclusions. In particular, there was one new assurance, that the Council,

“stands ready to embark on preparations … to ensure that negotiations”—

on the future partnership—

“can start as soon as possible”.

Following the Council, the Prime Minister met with President Macron, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Rutte and Presidents Tusk and Juncker. All were very clear that discussions on clarifications can continue. She will continue to discuss these over the coming days.

The Government understand that both Houses want to move on, which is why the Statement made clear that we intend to start the debate on the meaningful vote in the week commencing 7 January—the first week back after Christmas—and to hold the vote the following week.

The noble Lord asked about timing of a debate in this House. We had this announcement only today, but we will certainly be having discussions with the usual channels in parallel to discussions in the Commons. We have all worked on a cross-party consensus for the arrangement of debates previously. We certainly intend that to continue. We will let noble Lords know the outcome of those discussions as soon as we can.

The noble Lord mentioned again the second referendum. I can only reiterate what the Prime Minister has said, which is that Parliament has a democratic duty to deliver what the British people voted for. She remains determined to see that happen.

The noble Baroness asked for a message to be relayed to the Prime Minister. I can certainly assure her that the Prime Minister listens to the views of this House and will continue to do so.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, if the deal put forward by the Prime Minister fails to get through the House of Commons, as seems very likely, will my noble friend please tell the Cabinet that there is a large body of opinion in the Conservative Party, in Parliament and outside, supporting a further referendum? We will make common cause with all opinion, wherever we may find it, to achieve that desire.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We are working hard to ensure that we do get this deal through. Should the House of Commons choose to reject it, however, there is a process set out in legislation. We will follow that.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, in the seventh sentence of this Statement, the Prime Minister said that her,

“Brexit deal includes the deepest security partnership that has ever been agreed with the EU”.

This seems a very odd choice of words, since no such security partnership exists. The political declaration, in paragraphs 80 and following, sets out an ambition to have a broad, deep and comprehensive partnership with the European Union, but that is for negotiation. These paragraphs also make it clear that it will not be as good a partnership as we presently have with the other members of the European Union. Will the Leader of the House confirm that no such partnership exists; that the one we eventually have will be worse than we presently have; and that nobody who voted for Brexit voted for less security?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The political declaration is a declaration of our intentions for our future relationship. It certainly sets out the intention to have the strongest and broadest security relationship between the UK and the EU. Our partnership and strength in these matters was shown in particular, for instance, in the strong language of the Council conclusions on Russia and its actions in Ukraine, which was very much led by the Prime Minister. We will continue to work very closely on our security relationship. Both sides are absolutely determined to make sure that it is the deepest relationship that exists between the EU and another country.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, would the Leader of the House agree with me that the language of the Statement is not helpful? It says:

“But let us not risk the jobs, services and security of the people whom we serve”.


It is a fact that Brexit, of itself and the process we have gone through, has already done that. To say “Let us not further risk” might be more accurate. It also says:

“Another vote would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics”.


That integrity has already been rubbished by the lack of honesty about the realities that Brexit entails. Thirdly, it states that we should,

“get this Brexit done and shift the national focus to our domestic priorities”,

as if they were either/or.

As Sir Ivan Rogers makes clear in his remarkable lecture from the University of Liverpool—to which I would like to see a response from the Government—Brexit is process, not event, so there is no way in which it can be “got done”. This stage of it might be, but surely it is misleading to the country to suggest that it is somehow done if we get through this bit.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

This Government are going to deliver on the wishes of the British people, as expressed in the referendum. We and the EU have been clear that this is the best deal possible. It is a deal that we have worked extremely hard to secure and it will lead to a strong relationship between the UK and the EU in future. That is what we have been working towards and want to deliver to the British people, because that is what the British people wanted.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I ask the Leader: what will happen if, as seems very likely, the House of Commons does not approve the deal in the week of 14 January? Are the Government prepared to seek an extension of the Article 50 process in order to avoid the worst possible result, which is that we leave the EU with no deal?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The Government will be working very hard to get the deal through the House of Commons. But, as I said in response to a previous question, if the House of Commons chooses to reject the deal, there is a process set out in legislation, which we will follow.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement is anxious about future damage in the event of a second referendum, but what about the damage which recent events have been causing—in particular, damage to the value of the pound, which will undoubtedly result in an increase in the cost of living, and damage to the stock market, which will have an adverse impact on the value of the pensions of many of our citizens? Is the Cabinet so suffused with personal ambition and disloyalty that none of them notices what is happening?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The reason we have spent so much time negotiating this deal, which is a good deal, is that we want to ensure that we have a strong relationship with the EU going forward. We are all cognisant of the problems of uncertainty; for instance, that is why we have agreed an implementation period to help ensure that there is not a cliff edge. We are cognisant of the concerns the noble Lord outlined, which is exactly why the Prime Minister has been spending so much time negotiating a deal that is in the good interests of the UK and the EU.

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that it would be wrong in principle to embark on a second referendum when we have not yet completed delivery of the instruction from the electorate in the first referendum? But surely there is another reason, which is that it would be pointless to have a further referendum now because, far from people being better informed, the future relationship negotiations have not even started—and those are the ones that will most dramatically affect the future relationship between ourselves and the European Union.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I entirely agree with my noble friend, which is why we are working to make sure that the deal is approved by the House of Commons and we can move forward and, as he rightly says, get to the extremely important position of talking in detail about our future relationship with the EU—a strong, deep one, which we all want.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the Prime Minister said that it was important to act in the national interest, and given that the clear majority of Members of Parliament want to rule out no deal, in the national interest, why can we not have an early vote in the House of Commons which makes it quite clear that the House of Commons rejects the possibility of no deal?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As the Statement makes clear, we have set out the timetable for the vote to take place. We do not want a no-deal situation, which is why the Prime Minister is focusing on providing additional reassurances to the House of Commons, which it has clearly said it wants in order to feel able to support the deal. That is what she is working on, but we have to prepare for all eventualities—that is the only thing a responsible Government could do—and until this deal is passed, there is the possibility of no deal. We are working hard to avoid it but we have to prepare for all eventualities.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, is it not outrageous that a vote that was supposed to take place last week will not take place until the week of 14 January, against a deadline of 21 January? Having sat through more than an hour of the questioning in the other place earlier, it is quite clear that there is not a majority for this deal or for a no-deal Brexit. In those circumstances, is not the plea that was made a moment ago from the Cross Benches for an extension of Article 50 the only sensible way to try to find a consensus, which does exist but is not being allowed to surface?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am afraid I cannot say anything more to noble Lords about the date of the meaningful vote. That is the date that the Prime Minister has announced. That is the date on which it will take place in the House of Commons.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Leader of the House perhaps answer a couple of questions on the backstop? First, it is stated in the Statement that the conclusions of the European Council have legal status. That is not my understanding. They have political status but I do not believe they have legal status. Secondly, has anything come out in the conclusions from the European Council or in any other way that has led the Attorney-General to vary the advice he gave the Cabinet that there is nothing in the withdrawal agreement that permits one side to unilaterally exit the backstop?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As the conclusions were published only on Friday, I am afraid I do not know whether the Attorney-General has given any further advice. With regard to the timescale, I very much doubt it, but if that is not the case, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister in her Statement suggested that another vote,

“would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy that our democracy does not deliver”.

But if there is not a position or a deal on which Members of the House of Commons can agree, democracy is already under challenge. To suggest that voting on the Prime Minister’s deal and pushing that through is the way to deliver democracy is a travesty. It is not what people who voted leave voted for—some of them did; many did not—and it is not what people voted remain for. We need to look again.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We have not had a vote on the deal yet. The vote is coming. To decide further courses of action before we have actually had a vote does not seem that sensible. As I have made clear, if the House of Commons chooses to reject the deal, there is a process set out which will be followed.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Cabinet is to discuss its preparedness for no deal tomorrow morning. In light of that, would it be possible for the Government to give a Statement to Parliament on their preparedness for no deal before Christmas?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As my noble friend will be aware, the Government have regularly updated this House, the other House and Select Committees on our no-deal preparations, and we will continue to do so.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Is it not the case that people are allowed to decide themselves how they vote? If they wish to change their mind from time to time, they have the right to do that. But on what possible basis of justification do the Government think they can dictate to the British people that they should not be allowed to vote to remain in the European Union if they want to?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Parliament asked the people to make a decision and they did so in the referendum. That is what we are now delivering.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister tells us that nobody in Europe wants to use the backstop. That begs the question: if no one in Europe wants to use it and no one in Westminster wants to use it, why is it there? Can the Leader tell the House precisely what changes the Prime Minister requested that she believes will effectively deal with the backstop?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord will be aware that the backstop is an insurance policy. We, the EU and the Irish Government have been clear time and again that nobody wants to use the backstop. As I said, the Prime Minister wants further assurances for MPs in the House of Commons that it will not be used. As I have said, in the conclusions that were published on Friday the EU made it clear that it was its firm determination to work speedily on a future relationship so that the backstop will not need to be triggered, and that if the backstop was ever triggered it would apply only temporarily.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, having noted what the Prime Minister said in the Statement with regard to another referendum, the Leader will agree that there is a growing clamour in favour of having another referendum. As we move towards that—possibly—could we all stop talking about a second referendum? It is in fact a third referendum. The small group of people who clamoured over the years to have a second one, which they succeeded in getting in 2016, are now exactly the same people who are saying that a third one at this stage would be unconstitutional. Surely that is hypocrisy in the deepest possible way.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I can say to my noble friend that the focus of the Government is to get through the deal that has been negotiated—a deal that delivers for the UK and the EU and a deal that both sides say is the best deal possible.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness the Leader meets her Cabinet colleagues tomorrow to discuss preparations for no deal, will she encourage them not to waste their energies on trying to conjure political rabbits out of the House of Commons hat, to dismiss the lurid propaganda about cliff edges and catastrophes, to apply themselves vigorously to preparing for an orderly transition to WTO rules and to embark at the earliest possible moment on negotiations for a free trade agreement with the EU?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As the noble Lord knows, and as I have said in response to earlier questions, we do not want no deal but it is only right that a prudent Government plan for one. He will also be aware of the extensive work that has already been under way to prepare for no deal over the past two years: the 106 technical notices, the various agreements that we have in place and the money that we have put into preparing for it. This is not a situation that we want to be in but we have to ensure for the British people that all contingencies are covered, and that is what we are doing.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, how much taxpayers’ money would be spent if we had a second referendum? A second referendum would be a complete disaster. As the Prime Minister said, it would damage the core of a democracy that we took 1,000 years to achieve, and this Parliament is part of it. If you do a second referendum, why not a third or a fourth? Actually, why not govern by referenda and get rid of Parliament altogether? It is madness.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I understand that the Electoral Commission has recently published figures showing that the referendum in 2016 cost around £150 million or £160 million. If that is incorrect then I will write to my noble friend, but I think those are the figures that were published. We are not considering a second referendum. We are working to ensure that this deal is passed by the House of Commons.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, much has been made of the need to get the right sequencing into all this. People have generally agreed that it has to be sequenced in a proper way. In order that we do not run out of road, can the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that the current government thinking is that, now that we know the meaningful vote is not until the middle of January, nevertheless there will be time for Parliament to use its good offices to look at how far different options can add value to the way in which the body politic goes forward before other ideas are considered in this very tight timetable, unless we extend the period?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I reiterate that the meaningful vote will be held in the week of 14 January. Obviously we are looking towards winning that vote. As I have also set out, if the House of Commons rejects the deal then there is a process set out in legislation but, as the Statement said, if the deal goes through then we are looking at ways in which we can engage Parliament further in future as we move into the political relationship.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

Perhaps alone, I think the Prime Minister actually makes a rather compelling case for her deal in the Statement. Yes, it is a compromise, and it is risky and unpalatable, but it offers a route to a productive future relationship with the EU. In this febrile atmosphere, though, I fear that no one is listening to her.

I have two buts. First, we should not wait a month for a meaningful vote; if this does not get through, we need a plan B much more quickly than that. Secondly, I disagree—I hope the noble Baroness the Leader will tell the Cabinet tomorrow the mood of this House—with the Prime Minister’s argument that another vote would divide our country. That is simply not true. I think the opposite is the case: if we run out of road, and it looks as if we are doing so, another vote will be the only way to unite the country.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, what we will be focusing on in the weeks before the vote in January is to hope to provide reassurances to MPs so that they vote to support the deal. We will be continuing to talk about the fact that we believe that it is a good deal for both the EU and the UK. That is what our European partners have said and it is what we believe, and we will continue to make the case while trying to get the reassurances that MPs need in order to feel able to support it.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, may I take the noble Baroness back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick? If the House of Commons rejects the Prime Minister’s deal, she tells us that there is a process. Does that process include consideration of the extension of Article 50, or of the other options that are under consideration—for example, the customs union and the Norway option? Could she give us more detail, particularly on the point about Article 50?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, our focus as a Government, and the focus of the Prime Minister, is to ensure that we provide the reassurances that MPs need to get this deal approved. This is the best deal for the EU and the UK. I am afraid I am not going to speculate on situations that may arise if this deal is rejected by the House of Commons. As I have said, a clear process is set out. What our focus is on is to make sure that this deal does get the support that we believe it warrants and that is what the Prime Minister will be focusing on in discussions with her European colleagues over the coming weeks to try to make sure that that is the situation that happens, because we believe that that is the best outcome for the UK and we believe that that is what delivers the referendum result that the people voted for.

Business of the House

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on 19 December to enable the motions in the names of Lord Moynihan and Baroness Neville-Rolfe to be taken before the motions in the name of the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Foulkes of Cumnock set down for today shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top to 2 hours.

Motion agreed.

Exiting the European Union

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement. We have now had three days of debate on the withdrawal agreement setting out the terms of our departure from the EU and the political declaration setting out our future relationship after we have left. I have listened very carefully to what has been said in this Chamber and out of it by Members on all sides.

From listening to those views, it is clear that while there is broad support for many of the key aspects of the deal, on one issue—the Northern Ireland backstop—there remains widespread and deep concern. As a result, if we went ahead and held the vote tomorrow the deal would be rejected by a significant margin. We will therefore defer the vote scheduled for tomorrow and not proceed to divide the House at this time.

I set out in my speech opening the debate last week the reasons why the backstop is a necessary guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland and why—whatever future relationship Members want—there is no deal available that does not include the backstop. Behind all those arguments are some inescapable facts: the fact that Northern Ireland shares a land border with another sovereign state; the fact that the hard-won peace that has been built in Northern Ireland over the last two decades has been built around a seamless border; and the fact that Brexit will create a wholly new situation.

On 30 March the Northern Ireland-Ireland border will for the first time become the external frontier of the European Union’s single market and customs union. The challenge this poses must be met not with rhetoric but with real and workable solutions. Businesses operate across that border. People live their lives crossing and re-crossing it every day. I have been there and spoken to some of those people. They do not want their everyday lives to change as a result of the decision we have taken. They do not want a return to a hard border. If this House cares about preserving our union, it must listen to those people, because our union will endure only with their consent.

We had hoped that the changes we have secured to the backstop would reassure Members that we could never be trapped in it indefinitely. I hope the House will forgive me if I take a moment to remind it of those changes.

The customs element of the backstop is now UK-wide. It no longer splits our country into two customs territories. It also means that the backstop is now an uncomfortable arrangement for the EU, so it will not want it to come into use, or persist for long if it does. Both sides are now legally committed to using best endeavours to have our new relationship in place before the end of the implementation period, ensuring that the backstop is never used.

If our new relationship is not ready, we can now choose to extend the implementation period, further reducing the likelihood of the backstop coming into force. If the backstop ever does come into use, we now do not have to get the new relationship in place to get out of it. Alternative arrangements that make use of technology could be put in place instead. The treaty is now clear that the backstop can only ever be temporary. And there is now a termination clause.

But I am clear from what I have heard in this place, and from my own conversations, that these elements do not offer a sufficient number of colleagues the reassurances that they need. I spoke to a number of EU leaders over the weekend, and in advance of the European Council, I will go to see my counterparts in other member states and the leadership of the Council and the Commission. I will discuss with them the clear concerns that this House has expressed. We are also looking closely at new ways of empowering the House of Commons to ensure that any provision for a backstop has democratic legitimacy and to enable the House to place its own obligations on the Government to ensure that the backstop cannot be in place indefinitely.

Having spent the best part of two years poring over the detail of Brexit, listening to the public’s ambitions, and yes, their fears too, and testing the limits of what the other side is prepared to accept, I am in absolutely no doubt that this deal is the right one. It honours the result of the referendum. It protects jobs, security and our union. But it also represents the very best deal that is actually negotiable with the EU. I believe in it—as do many Members of this House. And I still believe that there is a majority to be won in this House in support of it, if I can secure additional reassurance on the question of the backstop. That is what my focus will be in the days ahead.

But if you take a step back, it is clear that this House faces a much more fundamental question. Does this House want to deliver Brexit? If the House does, does it want to do so through reaching an agreement with the EU? If the answer is yes, and I believe that is the answer of the majority of this House, then we all have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to make a compromise. There will be no enduring and successful Brexit without some compromise on both sides of the debate.

Many of the controversial aspects of this deal—including the backstop—are simply inescapable facts of having a negotiated Brexit. Those Members who continue to disagree need to shoulder the responsibility of advocating an alternative solution that can be delivered—and do so without ducking its implications. So if Members want a second referendum to overturn the result of the first, be honest that this risks dividing the country again, when as a House we should be striving to bring it back together. If you want to remain part of the single market and the customs union, be open that this would require free movement, rule-taking across the economy, and ongoing financial contributions—none of which are in my view compatible with the result of the referendum. If you want to leave without a deal, be up-front that in the short term, this would cause significant economic damage to parts of our country who can least afford to bear the burden.

I do not believe that any of those courses of action command a majority in this House. But notwithstanding that fact, for as long as we fail to agree a deal, the risk of an accidental no deal increases. So the Government will step up their work in preparation for that potential outcome and the Cabinet will hold further discussions on it this week.

The vast majority of us accept the result of the referendum, and want to leave with a deal. We have a responsibility to discharge. If we will the ends, we must also will the means. I know that Members across the House appreciate how important that responsibility is. I am very grateful to all Members—on this side of the House and a few on the other side too—who have backed this deal and spoken up for it.

Many others, I know, have been wrestling with their consciences, particularly over the question of the backstop: seized of the need to face up to the challenge posed by the Irish border, but genuinely concerned about the consequences. I have listened. I have heard those concerns and I will now do everything I possibly can to secure further assurances.

I conclude on a personal note. On the morning after the referendum two and a half years ago, I knew that we had witnessed a defining moment for our democracy. Places that did not get a lot of attention at elections and which did not get much coverage on the news were making their voices heard and saying that they wanted things to change. I knew in that moment that Parliament had to deliver for them. Of course that does not just mean delivering Brexit. It means working across all areas—building a stronger economy, improving public services, tackling social injustices—to make this a country that truly works for everyone; a country where nowhere and nobody is left behind.

These matters are too important to be afterthoughts in our politics; they deserve to be at the centre of our thinking. But that can only happen if we get Brexit done and get it done right. Even though I voted to remain, from the moment I took up the responsibility of being Prime Minister of this great country I have known that my duty is to honour the result of that vote. I have been just as determined to protect the jobs that put food on the tables of working families and the security partnerships that keep each one of us safe.

That is what this deal does. It gives us control of our borders, our money and our laws. It protects jobs, security and our union. It is the right deal for Britain. I am determined to do all I can to secure the reassurances this House requires, to get this deal over the line and deliver for the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement.

This is a curiously insubstantial Statement. It appears to be a demonstration of one of the Prime Minister’s most tried and tested political tactics: kicking the can down the road for another week. Why? She is open and straightforward about that; she has been listening to what has been said and has formed the understandable view that the deal will be,

“rejected by a significant margin”,

in the Commons. What is her response to this imminent rejection? She says:

“I spoke to a number of EU leaders over the weekend, and in advance of the European Council I will go to see my counterparts in other member states and the leadership of the Council and the Commission. I will discuss with them the clear concerns that this House has expressed”.


I am sure that she will explain that she cannot get the current deal through in its current form, but what happens next? She says that she will seek to ensure,

“additional reassurance on the question of the backstop”.

What does “reassurance” mean in this context? What specific reassurances is the Prime Minister looking for, particularly given that she knows that the reopening of the whole withdrawal agreement is simply not on offer? I think Leo Varadkar speaks for everyone who has given an opinion from the EU side today when he says:

“It is not possible to reopen any aspect of that agreement without reopening all aspects of it”.


Obviously, the Prime Minister is not in the market for reopening all aspects of the agreement, therefore she accepts that the backstop is not negotiable. Indeed she does, because she says:

“Many of the most controversial aspects of this deal—including the backstop—are simply inescapable facts of having a negotiated Brexit”.


She then challenges her opponents in her own party:

“Those members who … disagree need to shoulder the responsibility of advocating an alternative solution that can be delivered”.


It is quite clear, from everything the Prime Minister has said in recent weeks, that she does not believe that such an alternative solution exists.

Having in effect accepted that she will not secure significant changes this weekend on the backstop, the Prime Minister has reverted to one of her other most common tactics: the Government’s own Project Fear with regard to no-deal Brexit. She says that,

“the Government will step up their work in preparation for that potential outcome and the Cabinet will hold further discussions on it this week”.

I wonder how many weeks and how many Statements have contained that statement that the Cabinet will have further discussions on something and step up preparations for a no-deal Brexit. Can the noble Baroness the Leader tell us how much money has already been spent on a no-deal Brexit, and what the Government’s plans are with regard to expenditure between now and the end of March?

The Prime Minister then says that there is a real danger that if,

“we fail to agree a deal, the risk of an accidental no deal increases”.

But the possibility of an accidental no deal has disappeared with the Grieve amendment. You will have an accidental no deal only if the Commons, by some means, is denied the opportunity to vote on something else. The Grieve amendment now means that the Commons will have the opportunity to vote on something else in any circumstance. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, shakes his head; perhaps he can advise the Leader what to say in response to that, because I thought that is what the Grieve amendment meant. If it does not mean that, perhaps she will tell us what it means.

Not only is there a whiff of decay around the Government in general, but there is an overwhelming sense that the Prime Minister is going through the motions before bringing the same deal back to Parliament either next week or early in the new year. It is now clearer than ever that the Government’s deal—the best possible deal, according to the Prime Minister—is an extremely unappetising dog’s breakfast. The Commons has already, in effect, rejected it; its last rites should now be given by the people.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. It seems to be my weekly treat: responding to their responses to a prime ministerial Statement. I believe we shall have another next week so I look forward to that as well. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about no deal. Of course, we do not want no deal but we continue to prepare for one. Extensive work has been under way for over two years. We have successfully passed critical legislation, signed international agreements, recruited additional staff and guaranteed certain EU funding for a no-deal scenario.

The noble Lord asked about money. As he will be aware, the Chancellor previously announced that £2 billion has been put aside for no-deal planning, and we have published 106 technical notices to help businesses and citizens to prepare for a no-deal event; we will continue to do that. The noble Baroness asked about a future date. She will be aware that no date has yet been set; the Prime Minister is now focused on securing the assurances for Parliament that she believes are necessary. The EU and Irish Governments have been clear that without a backstop there is no deal but, both in this House and in the other place, significant concern has been expressed, specifically about the perceived indefinite nature of the backstop.

As the Statement made clear, we had hoped that the changes we have secured would have been sufficient to reassure noble Lords and Members of the other place that we could not be trapped in a backstop indefinitely, but they have not done so. Therefore the Prime Minister will go back to the EU to try to get further reassurances and she is exploring a number of ways in which this may be achieved. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister spoke to Presidents Juncker and Tusk, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Rutte and Taoiseach Varadkar. In those conversations, the leaders indicated that they are open to discussions to find a way to provide reassurance to Members on this point. These will be very important discussions. Over the next few days, in advance of the Council, the Prime Minister will speak and meet with leaders, the Council and the Commission. Discussions will happen at both official and political levels.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My noble friend the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister have spoken about the Prime Minister’s quest for reassurance, but the withdrawal agreement, including the backstop, is legally binding. Does my noble friend therefore accept that, to be convincing, any reassurance that the Prime Minister seeks and obtains will need to be equally legally binding?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, we will explore a number of ways in which this reassurance might be achieved. The Prime Minister has been clear that she has heard the voices of both Houses and will do what she can to achieve those reassurances.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

There is a section in the Statement that implies that the two Houses will have more influence than they had before. Many of us think that is long overdue; had Parliament been involved earlier, it might have got us to a better place than we are in now. The Prime Minister talks in the Statement about being more in contact with the House of Commons in particular, but presumably also with this House. If the Government can expand on that, we might get an approach from Parliament that helps the Government in what is by any standard a major crisis.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

In the debate last week, the Prime Minister said in her opening speech—and I repeated it here in my opening speech—that we are looking at ways in which Parliament can be more involved. Specifically, in the Statement today, she said and I repeated that:

“We are also looking closely at new ways of empowering the House of Commons to ensure that any provision for a backstop has democratic legitimacy and to enable the House to place its own obligations on the Government to ensure that the backstop cannot be in place indefinitely”.


The Prime Minister will continue to hold discussions with Members to think about how best to do that.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and I assure her that it is not part of the role of the EU Committee of this House to take a partisan stance on these matters, particularly when feelings are running very high. However, will she reflect on two things which both arise from the context of what we might call renewed parliamentary interest in the management of the Brexit process? The first, not least because a number of our colleagues have been frustrated in making their contributions this evening, is to ask whether she will take back to her colleagues the possibility of this House’s involvement, at least on an advisory basis, in giving a view on whatever additional assurances the Prime Minister might achieve in relation to the backstop. The second goes rather wider in relation to no-deal contingency planning. It would be fair to say that the Government have been reticent in providing information to parliamentarians of all kinds about how this is going. Can we take it as part of the package that the Government will be more forthcoming on whatever basis is appropriate so that we can be alerted to the continuing process?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I echo the apologies that my noble friend the Chief Whip made to noble Lords who were hoping to contribute today. I am sorry that they will not be able to do so but, as the noble Baroness said, we look forward to hearing those contributions at a future stage. The Government have been very open about their no-deal preparations. As I said, we have published 106 technical notices, and many Ministers have appeared on many occasions in your Lordships’ House and in our committees to set out our plans, and we will continue to do so.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, the Prime Minister says in her Statement that those who continue to disagree need to shoulder the responsibility of advocating an alternative solution that can be delivered. Surely that is everybody’s responsibility. She goes on to ask people to be honest about the implications of what they want. However, it seems to me that people have been honest for the last couple of years but they have not been listened to. Has the time now come for the Prime Minister and the Government to stop playing a zero-sum game and, on a cross-party basis, find a credible way ahead?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am afraid I do not agree with the right reverend Prelate on that point. The Government have been listening and it is for that very reason that the Prime Minister has now decided to go back to the EU to discuss the further reassurances that people are looking for, as has been made very clear in this House and the other place.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I will not try to put an aborted speech into a question. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talks about “something else”. We know what his something else is—he has been very clear about it—but there are 16 or 17 something elses in the other place. Is it not a fact that Parliament is not a Government and that it cannot and never will agree by itself if it tries to take back control of this whole process? Is not the only conclusion a compromise negotiated by a Government with the agreement of the European Union, which we hope will make some small adjustments for that compromise? Does that not remain the only sensible way forward, short of total chaos?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank my noble friend. He is absolutely right that the negotiations involve compromise on both sides. We have a deal and EU leaders have been clear that it is the only one available. Having said that, we have recognised the strength of feeling on one particular issue—the indefinite, or perceived indefinite, nature of the backstop. It is something that both sides want to try to resolve because we both want a deal that will benefit the United Kingdom and the EU and ensure that we have a strong partnership going forward. That is in all our interests.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the CJEU’s judgment this morning gave the UK a simple way of withdrawing from Brexit—by unilaterally revoking our Article 50 notice. Should not the Government now reconsider their argument that a people’s vote would be undemocratic, as it is now two and a half years since the 2016 referendum and the various options for Brexit and their risks are better understood? Why should the people not be given the chance to put an end to this chaos rather than condemn the country to years of future uncertainty?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The people have already voted: they voted in June 2016 to leave. This judgment may clarify the law but it does not change our position. I remind noble Lords that the people have voted.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in mind, is not perhaps the real reason the Prime Minister has backed off the fact that a second Motion of confidence would have to be held within 14 days, which means Christmas Day? Does that not suggest that we might be looking at a deferred resignation?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

No, the Prime Minister has been clear about why we have decided to defer the vote: it is because we want to try to secure the reassurances that will be needed to ensure that a deal that has the best prospects for this country gets through the House of Commons. That is what she will be focusing and working on in the coming days.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Leader of the House confirm that the processes laid down in the EU withdrawal Act have not been spent and that therefore it is not a question of giving this House a chance to just debate any other reassurances she gets, but that we have to go through the whole business laid down in the EU withdrawal Act? Would she further say whether the Prime Minister, in her consultations with her colleagues in the rest of the European Union, will include in that the possibility of prolonging the period of Article 50 beyond two years?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord is right that specific conditions are set out in the EU withdrawal Act, and we will abide by them. The final two days of debate and subsequent vote in the House of Commons are being deferred to a later date and the amendments that have been tabled will stand when the debate is resumed. As I made clear to the noble Lord, our position on Article 50 has not changed.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, my noble friend spoke of the possibility of not reaching an agreement with our friends in the European Union. In that event, does that also imply that we would not be paying them £39 billion ransom money?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, other leaders have indicated that they are open to further discussion on this issue and we remain committed to getting a deal. However, my noble friend is right that in the unlikely event that we leave the EU without a deal, the financial settlement as set out in the withdrawal agreement would no longer apply as there would be no withdrawal agreement.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that her two arguments against putting this back to the people—that is, first, that the people have already voted and cannot be reconsulted and, secondly, that somehow any vote would divide the nation—are perfect arguments for abolishing general elections? That is precisely what a general election is: it is a reconsultation—after a period, in the light of experience and further information—by asking the people again. Can she tell us why those principles apply to a second referendum but do not apply to general elections?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

At the last general election both main parties said that they would respect the result of the referendum and deliver Brexit. We are doing that.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I welcome the emphasis placed by the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness on the word “compromise”. Does she accept that if a compromise is likely to be acceptable, it would not be on the basis of crashing out without a deal? In those circumstances, why will the Government not rule out the option of crashing out without a deal to look for a compromise that can bring people together?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, because the deal has not yet been approved by the UK Government or the EU, there is still the chance that we will end up in a no-deal situation. It is a situation we do not want to be in but it is only prudent and right that we prepare for every eventuality, and that is what we are doing. The Prime Minister is focused on getting reassurances that will help and enable the House of Commons to feel that it can accept this deal so that we can move on with our relationship with the EU.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, two Cabinet Ministers in the past 24 hours have used the phrase, “managed no deal” as an alternative plan B. That sounds rather like a square circle. Can she explain what she thinks they may have meant by the idea of a “managed no deal”? Since the Prime Minister has also talked about a major shift of policy towards helping those who have been left behind in the deprived regions of this country, can she tell us whether there is going to be a government strategy to help the left behind which might involve a substantial reversal of the politics of austerity?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said in relation to no deal, that is not what we are working towards, but we have to be prudent and prepare for it, and we will continue to do so. I would say that we are pursuing many government policies in a whole range of areas, from education to our industrial strategy and housing. They will make sure that we deliver a country that works for everyone and that is better for everyone.

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords, the Statement correctly identifies the backstop as one of the main issues. Does the Minister recall the opinion of the Attorney-General that Great Britain is essentially treated as a third country by Northern Ireland for goods passing from GB into NI? This means that regular checks would have to take place between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, normally at airports or ports. Does the Minister recognise that in Northern Ireland people are saying, “They are abolishing the Irish border and instead creating a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”? That is dynamite to the unionist community in Northern Ireland. The Government need to tread very carefully. As one of those who negotiated the Belfast agreement, I can assure noble Lords that, living on the ground as I do near the border, the peace process is increasingly coming under challenge.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I certainly respect the noble Lord’s views, and that is why we have consistently said that there will be no return to a hard border in Ireland. That remains at the forefront and it is a commitment that we will keep. The noble Lord will of course be aware that currently there are at least 30 different agri-food regulatory checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that the island of Ireland is already a separate entity to Great Britain for the purposes of plant and animal health.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, let us be honest about this. Is this not increasingly a desperate clutching at straws by the Prime Minister to try to heal divisions on this issue within the Conservative Party? That is why David Cameron led us to this unfortunate referendum in the first place. Why is it that the poor of this country—and it is the poor of this country—should continue to suffer and to be sacrificed on the altar of Tory Party political expediency?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am afraid that I do not accept the noble Lord’s assertions. As I have said, the Prime Minister has listened to the concerns raised in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords about the perceived indefinite nature of the backstop. She will now focus on trying to address those to make sure that we get a Brexit that works for this country and for the EU.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I have just come back from Brussels, where I was talking about the lessons from Brexit. Essentially what I said was, “Don’t do it”. While I was there a friend said, “It feels rather like the days of David Cameron. We never knew what he wanted. We kept asking what the United Kingdom wanted”. The same is true of Theresa May looking for an agreement now. Can the Leader tell us what the Prime Minister expects to get on Thursday that will be clear to the EU 27 or to any of us?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We have a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration that has been agreed. There is one issue that has been raised—the perceived indefinite nature of the backstop—that is still causing concern. It is that issue that the Prime Minister will be discussing with other leaders over the next few days and it is that issue on which we will hope to provide further reassurances. So I think that is quite clear.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Leader received any assurances from our European colleagues that they are open to further compromises—and, if so, are we prepared to run the risk that opening one part of the deal will allow other countries to run their hobby-horses, be it on fisheries, Gibraltar and so forth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I can certainly say to the noble Lord that in conversations over the weekend, the leaders that the Prime Minister spoke to indicated that they are open to discussions on a way to provide reassurance on the specific point of the Northern Ireland backstop.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, the Leader just told us that over the weekend, European leaders assured the Prime Minister that they are prepared to look at reassurances. Is she aware that the Irish Taoiseach, Mr Varadkar, said recently that,

“no statement of clarification can contradict what’s in”,

the withdrawal agreement? That does not look to me like a situation in which there can be further consideration.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I mentioned in an earlier response, the Prime Minister spoke to Mr Varadkar over the weekend. Discussions will continue but we are looking to talk to leaders, the European Commission and the Council to see whether we can provide further reassurance about that particular issue.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, in answer to a Question from one of her Back-Benchers on the economic consequences of the deal, the Prime Minister said that the people will be no poorer than they are today. Is that what the Government believe the people voted for two years ago in the referendum? Now that we face a decline in standards over time, should not the people be given the opportunity to have a second say?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The people voted to leave the European Union, which we are delivering. We are looking to deliver a Brexit that secures jobs and the economy and allows us to make free trade deals across the world. The future is bright and one that we look forward to.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I want to take the House back to the concept of a backstop. Is not the nature of a backstop that it must be a backstop? A backstop that one party can unilaterally abrogate somehow ceases to be a backstop. How can you negotiate away a backstop and it still remain a backstop?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I have been very clear that there is no deal available that does not include a backstop. Concerns have been expressed about the perceived indefinite nature of the backstop. That is what the Prime Minister will discuss further over the coming days.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, would not the Government giving some idea of what they think might replace the backstop in the long run be more helpful? Will the Prime Minister tell the many Brexiteers in the other place that their proposal for a Canada-plus-plus or whatever free trade agreement will not resolve the problem of a hard border in Northern Ireland and so the Government will have to think of something else? Of course, that something else might be staying in the European Union, which is the best way to avoid the Northern Irish problem.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I agreed with the first part of the noble Lord’s questions but I am afraid that he had lost me slightly by the end. He is absolutely right that a Canada-style deal would mean a hard border in Ireland, which we have consistently raised concerns about. He is also right that there are other options; for example, there is potential for a short extension of the implementation period. We have also got agreement to look at facilitative arrangements and how they could be used instead. The backstop is not something that either side wants to use, but it is an insurance policy. The noble Lord is right that there are other options but no other deal on the table will deal with this issue. The Irish Government and the EU have been clear that there will be no deal without a backstop. That is what we have to address now.

House adjourned at 6.14 pm.