European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, we have gone via all kinds of highways, by-ways, Aunt Sallies and red herrings—mixing my metaphors, no doubt—but the central issue of this amendment is, in the words of my noble friend Lord Lester: who is the master, Ministers or Parliament? The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, insisted that this was about taking back control for Parliament. It should not be the taking back of control for the Executive: Parliament should be in charge and in the driving seat.

The various criticisms of the amendment seem to me to be more properly directed at the Prime Minister’s assurance in the White Paper because—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, originally used this phrase—it gives the Prime Minister what she asked for. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, said that it adds to the complexity and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said that it made it more complicated and muddied the waters. Well then, why did the Prime Minister pledge approval by both Houses of Parliament? As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, this would put an assurance—an undertaking given by the Prime Minister—into a statutory obligation, and it is wise and sensible so to do.

There is no basis whatever for the assertion, made variously by the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Forsyth, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that it would give this House a veto. Given that the Prime Minister offered to give approval by both Houses of Parliament, presumably she knows how that would work and has shared it with the Government. It is for the Government to deal with that process, which could, as other noble Lords have mentioned, be avoided if there was primary legislation because then the rules would be clear.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, counselled against an amendment that gives Parliament power, which I found a strange piece of advice. Surely Parliament has the right to such a power as we possess under the constitution, but it seems that it is not normal to have parliamentary power in the kind of parallel universe that Brexit has created. The amendment does not weaken the Government’s bargaining position. The statement, “I’ve got to get it past my legislators”, is perfectly good enough for a US president or EU negotiators. It should be more than good enough for the British Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Hill, said that our EU partners read our debates. Yes, they may well do, and they will in this case, but they know that we in this Parliament want really substantial content in a future relationship. We might even stiffen the Government’s backbone in the negotiations. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, that far from being in conflict, getting the best deal and parliamentary sovereignty go hand in hand.

Finally, Brexiteers seem to claim that this is a wicked plot by remainers but, in fact, some of them seem to find Parliament an inconvenient obstacle to their dream of crashing out of the EU altogether. They want the Government to be able to action no deal; they do not want Parliament to be able to say, “Hang on—is that actually a good idea?”. That is why this amendment is extremely valid.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this afternoon we have heard a really compelling case for quite a simple demand: the right of Parliament, rather than government, to authorise the arrangements whereby the Article 50 negotiations conclude. Indeed, probably no additional words are needed to strengthen the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or many of the others who have spoken. I will not mention them all but the House will forgive me if I mention my noble friends Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Symons and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady McIntosh and Lady Ludford. What do they have in common? So I must also mention the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, although sadly she was not able to support the case.

Essentially, Amendment 3 is about implementing the Supreme Court’s view that withdrawal would require parliamentary authorisation. The argument is straightforward. As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said, it would secure in law the Government’s commitment that Parliament is the ultimate decider. Very shortly, maybe even next week, the Prime Minister will trigger Article 50 of the treaty. But neither that treaty nor any UK law states how the arrangements made by our Government should be made into law. What is written in the treaty—in EU law, in other words—is that the final agreement will go to the Council and to the European Parliament, so it is mandatory for that Parliament to give its consent but there is no similar requirement for this Parliament to give its consent.

The Prime Minister has said that she will allow a vote in both Houses and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, quoted Mr Jones saying that that was the intent. That, to me, is not a very firm commitment, no matter how sincerely it was given. Indeed, when the Minister said in Committee that the Government’s oral,

“commitment mirrors the powers of the European Parliament”,—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 923.]

he was not exactly right because its power is written in law. All we are asking is for an equal legislative requirement for the exit deal to come to this Parliament. It is basically about the Crown’s prerogative against Parliament’s.

I turn to the West Lothian question—no, not that but the Grocott question. We will have to call it the Grocott question as he no longer has a constituency. This was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. It is true that whether we look at the undertaking given by the Prime Minister or at this amendment, there would be a problem if the House of Commons were to vote one way and your Lordships’ House another. I hope that will not be the case for lots of reasons. Particularly, I hope that by then not just the country but Parliament will have come together, and that we are of one view. But I make it clear from these Benches that if that were to be the outcome, we are absolutely clear that ultimately the will of the Commons must prevail.

Furthermore, if that is the only argument given against this amendment, there are two ways of answering it. One is that we do a bit of hurried work this evening to table an amendment and, if the Government were willing to accept it, that might be the easiest way. Keeping all my friends here late into the night, however, may not be the best way of achieving that end. We would not want to risk voting down the idea of Commons supremacy just because, very sensibly, everyone was back in their beds. The real issue is to get this principle into the Bill and down the road into the Commons. On behalf of the Opposition, I say that if that is the only point of dispute between us, given that we want the supremacy to be down there rather than here, we will happily work with the Government on the form of words to make that absolutely crystal clear.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the amendment and the excellent arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the other signatories, the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Oates. We also support the tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They are extremely convincing. My noble friend Lady Kramer answered the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who said that it was clear that leaving the EU means leaving the single market. That is absolutely not the case. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, about the Conservative manifesto of 2015, which said:

“We say: yes to the Single Market”.


He answered very effectively the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.

The Government claim they want free, seamless and frictionless trade, at least as possible. Those two words “as possible” have great import and meaning, because it will not be possible to have free, seamless and frictionless trade if we are not in the single market and the customs union. Anything else is very much second best. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, summed it up: it is about integrated supply chains. If it was not important whether we are in the single market and the customs union we would not have had such reactions from successive car firms, such as Nissan and Vauxhall. Now, apparently, BMW is about to move production of electric Minis out of the UK. No doubt it will knock on the Government’s door very soon to try to get a similar comfort letter out of them.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, talked about how goods sailing out of Tilbury was passé. It does not seem to be passé to manufacturers in this country. Any alternative to being in the single market and the customs union is more bureaucratic and more cumbersome. In addition, any terms for trading freely with the EU single market will mean compliance with product standards, other regulation and data standards, which were mentioned. That has caused huge problems for non-EU members, including the United States. On this fetish that the Government have to pretend that we have never heard of the European Court of Justice, they will have to face up to the fact that, one way or another, directly or indirectly, we will have to accord with EU law and the rulings of the court. As I said the other day, there will be some sort of smoke and mirrors there.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, stressed how important the single market is to Wales. I pick that up, because my noble friend Lady Humphreys stressed it at Second Reading. Indeed, she mentioned the Airbus factory in Wales, which must have the same integrated supply chain issues that were mentioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was dismissive of the EU market, which takes only 42% or 44% of our exports. That is three times as much as the US market takes. The point is that the EU is a battering ram to try and open up US and other markets. One of the problems is state-level public procurement in the US and with “Buy America” being reinforced by President Trump, we are going to need all the help we can get from the European base. We are not going to be able to open up those markets on our own.

The other red line, besides the Court of Justice, is the fetish of free movement. It has been made a red line by the Government and, I am afraid, by the Labour Opposition. It became apparent in exchanges we have had in the last few weeks in this House at Question Time that the UK Government do not even know whether they are enforcing the existing restrictions on free movement, and they are refusing to explore the flexibility and change that it might be possible to get across the EU or the EEA. The noble Lord, Lord Green, says that there was no prospect of any serious measures of control. However, what was interesting about the renegotiation of the former Prime Minister David Cameron was the quite extraordinary principle introduced of the possibility to discriminate on the grounds of nationality, which was actually pretty revolutionary.

The Government are not even trying to explore the flexibility there, as well as, of course, ignoring the two-way street and opportunities that it gives the British people. Just throwing away free movement is telling particularly our young people, as well as retirees, that they can dish any plans they had to work, study and retire in Europe. Therefore, from these Benches we fully support the amendment. I hope that the speeches from distinguished noble Lords on the Labour Benches—and even not on the Labour Benches—and the dialogue, will have persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to join these Benches in supporting the amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, what a nice invitation to have from the noble Baroness. It is almost impossible to disagree with my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Mandelson, and, indeed, most of the other noble Lords who have spoken, certainly from this side but elsewhere, about the benefit of the single market to the UK’s economic and social prosperity. As many noble Lords know—they have had to hear from me far too many times—my commitment to the EU long predates the creation of the internal market, although it was perhaps more for me the peace project referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in an earlier amendment. I nevertheless believe that the internal market has contributed to these wider objectives in addition to the trade and prosperity that it has helped to generate.

Indeed, the arguments we have heard are exactly those that I used day after day during the referendum. However, some of the speeches today, I fear, were about trying to rerun that argument. Amendment 4 is rather as if the referendum had not happened and the result was not for leaving. The Bill is about authorising the Prime Minister to begin the process. It is not about going over the arguments. What it demands is a statement from the Prime Minister contrary to her White Paper. I think she is getting the approach wrong, but that it different from making it a statement from her, that only at that point could we trigger Article 50 because that statement makes it conditional within the amendment. I think asking a Prime Minister to eat her own words before she triggers it is something that this House probably cannot and would not want to do.

Anyway, our continued membership of the single market once we are outside the EU—that is, back in the EFTA, which we left in 1972—is also difficult as we would have to accept ECJ jurisdiction as well as free movement. I cannot see the problem with the ECJ. I simply do not understand the Government’s horror at accepting an international court. We will need some sort of adjudication system anyway in any free trade agreement with the EU. Whether the Government will then complain about that I do not know.

Brexit: New Partnership

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and the House for agreeing to hear it so early, before having time to see the White Paper. It was a courtesy to me so that I can get away for the funeral of my favourite uncle, Uncle Joe. That is why we are having this debate early—so I can go and bid farewell to him—and I thank the House for its tolerance.

I also thank the Government for now—perhaps a little late—putting a White Paper to Parliament and making an announcement here. It was a tad regrettable that the Prime Minister’s two key speeches were made outside Parliament; one to the Conservative Party on 2 October and one in Lancaster House on 17 January. It is Parliament—and particularly the House of Commons—which speaks for the country, so we are pleased that the White Paper, which we have long sought, has been announced at the Dispatch Box.

The driving motivation for Mrs May and her negotiators must be the long-term economic and social well-being of the UK. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that she led the country. I hope that she can and will, because only by exiting the EU in a way that serves all the country—Scotland, Wales, London and the areas that have done less well from globalisation—will she truly be able to work to unite a divided country and also enable our economy, businesses, workers and consumers to benefit, while safeguarding our environment and our relationship with our nearest neighbours and close allies.

Some of what is suggested in the White Paper we can support: tariff-free, encumbrance-free and—I think the Minister said—frictionless access to the EU market; the ability to recruit talent; support for science and innovation; and, as I have stressed before, the partnership that we need with the EU 27. But we also have serious concerns about the White Paper, which will form our agenda for scrutiny here and, I hope, for the ongoing work of our EU committees, to which the Minister paid tribute earlier.

Consumers are not highlighted in the 12 principles but are vulnerable to losing compensation from cancelled flights and dangerous products once we are out of the European alert system. They will possibly be unable to use our courts to follow insurance claims for car accidents abroad, and may even face visa requirements to travel in the EU. The environment is also not one of the overarching 12 principles, despite enormous improvements to the environment made at EU level in co-operation with our EU allies. Nor is how to make good our absence from Euratom—just three paragraphs in the White Paper. We regret any departure from the customs union. We will seek to understand why on earth this is an objective, given the problems it will cause for our importers and exporters, particularly of complex products or components, and for the service sector, as was raised this morning.

I am also curious about the background to the White Paper. Is it just the Lancaster House speech but in a more normal White Paper style? Or is it what we would normally expect from a Government who know what they are doing, based on careful cost-benefit and options appraisal, with impact assessments prepared for the various options? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked some fairly simple but fundamental questions this morning about such assessments, but answers came there none. I ask again: will the Government, while holding any negotiation tricks safely up their sleeve, complete and publish impact assessments on the White Paper’s objectives? Will they make these available to our EU committees in a timely manner so that their reports can influence the Government’s thinking?

When will the Government publish the other White Paper, not on what is called the great repeal Bill but on what is actually a retrenchment Bill? Will there be pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but I ask him from where the Government believe they derive the mandate to leave the single market, in an extreme version of Brexit. This dishonours the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, breaks the Conservative manifesto promise to stay in the single market and breaches the wishes of 90% of voters who, in a poll last November, said they wanted to stay in the single market. There was no choice on the ballot last June that asked people, “Do you want to leave the single market?”.

Therefore, will the Minister tell me why this version of Brexit, which will be so destructive to our economy and jobs, is being chosen? It will also be a great deal more bureaucratic. Any alternative to the smooth trade we get with the single market and the customs union, especially for supply chains that exist not only in manufacturing but in services and, as I learned this morning, universities, which depend on the free exchange of academics, will be more bureaucratic and mean more red tape. The Conservatives always tell us they stand for slashing red tape. Also, how do we expect to get the benefits of common systems and frameworks when we are not in the single market and customs union? I do not understand how we can derive such benefits.

The Prime Minister said in her Lancaster House speech that,

“no deal … is better than a bad deal”.

In the light of that, will the Minister please explain how the Government will fulfil the promises of certainty, clarity and a smooth orderly exit, avoiding a disruptive cliff edge? If the Government propose to walk away from the negotiations, how can they avoid a disorderly, chaotic Brexit, which is precisely what business and most of us fear? Where is the national consensus? Where are the 48% of people who voted to remain reflected in the White Paper, which I acknowledge I have not had the opportunity to read, although I read the Statement, which talks about a national consensus? I second the request for the publication of impact assessments for us to know exactly where the Government think they are taking us in concrete reality.

The Prime Minister has admitted that the UK will continue to pay into the EU budget for the sectoral benefits they expect to get. Where will the money come from for the NHS, promised by the leave campaign? It is currently about £11 billion; we all know how cash-starved the NHS is.

On the declared red line of no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice, how will we then co-operate on crime and terrorism, and exchange data? These Benches fully support cross-border co-operation on policing and security, as well as civil justice. The Home Secretary was pressed on this in the other place by the Home Affairs Committee. It asked how she was going to get those arrangements while denying the jurisdiction of the Luxembourg court. She floundered in answering that question, as did the Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice to the EU Justice Sub-Committee on Tuesday in the area of civil justice. It simply does not add up.

I also ask the Minister a question we keep asking because it is important, particularly to this House. It is a cross-party concern that EU nationals and Brits in the rest of the EU should not be a pawn in negotiations. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Government giving a unilateral guarantee and a simplified procedure for EU nationals to stay, and for Brits in the rest of the EU. It is morally indefensible as well as economically illiterate not to do so. Can the Minister give me a real answer why that is not happening?

Lastly, if the Government really believe in British democracy, they should trust the people for a final say on this deal. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, thinks it is funny. The Liberal Democrats do not. We take democracy seriously. People have not had a chance to see the colour of the Government’s money when it comes to what Brexit will mean in detail. They—not just Parliament, but voters—should get the chance to say whether that Brexit deal is good enough or whether they prefer to stay with the European Union.

A New Partnership with the EU

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which, regrettably, we saw on TV before it was given in the Commons.

We welcome the commitment to a vote in this House on the final deal—but how much better had the Government committed to a vote on Article 50 rather than having to be dragged to the courts. We also welcome the objective of ending up with a fairer Britain—it would have been strange if they had asked to get to a less fair Britain. Our worry is the sting in the tail of saying that “no deal” and a new economic model was better than a bad deal. That sounds like lower taxes, which means fewer public services and therefore a price to be paid by exactly those ordinary working people whom the Prime Minister claims to prioritise.

However, I do not want to dwell on the possibility of failure in negotiations. I want to welcome the commitment to as free trade as possible with the European Union—our major market, our closest neighbours, our security partners. I welcome the Government’s use of the word “partnership” as a grown-up relationship which benefits both sides. My concern is whether this is possible, since the Government are contemplating leaving the customs union. Without that, we are in WTO territory, with no protection for services, a poor deal for agriculture —the future of which got no reference at all in the speech—and higher prices for consumers as tariffs are imposed. The NFU estimates that there would be cheese and meat tariffs of up to 30%, with extra red tape adding a further 6%.

More than this, if we are not fully in the customs union, we will not be able to import and export finished products or components without “country of origin” rules and checks. That is costly and time-consuming. If costs to business increase, how can we expect them to invest and innovate? Outside of the customs union, our financial services would also be at a disadvantage—a cost to industry as well as the services themselves. If our insolvency regime does not work, investors will think twice about locating here and putting their money at risk. If our insurance, hedging, clearing and other major services are weaker, so is the chance of entrepreneurs and investors risking their capital.

We of course welcome the commitment to maintaining workers’ rights and hope that the Government will therefore support Melanie Onn’s Private Member’s Bill, which entrenches just that. Furthermore, workers are consumers too, yet they did not get a mention in the speech. Their rights to be protected from unsafe goods or food, their ability to travel visa-free, using their domestic car insurance, or to get compensation for delayed air travel—all these also need to be retained but were not mentioned. We were pleased to hear the acknowledgement of the importance of science, but we heard nothing as to whether we would be able to stay within the European Medicines Agency or other similar agencies, which are vital for our trading relationships.

What of the future needs of our economy? The Government, quite rightly, want to protect EU citizens already here, but what of the future? A quarter of a million EU nationals work in public services, but there will be churn and, in care homes as well as hospitals, we may need these people in the future, as with the 100,000 EU nationals working in food and drink.

I leave just three quite simple questions with the Minister. First, what impact assessment have the Government made of the UK being outside the customs union, and will he commit to publishing that? Secondly, does he accept that, even if we come out of the ECJ, any trade agreement requires some sort of dispute adjudication body? So what thought has been given to what might be appropriate for a free trade agreement with the EU? Finally, what response does he envisage from the EU 27 to these objectives?

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We see that the Prime Minister, who pretended that she did not have to choose, has come to the end of her “cake policy” period and has made a choice, and it is the most damaging one possible in response to the referendum result and in terms of the values, vision and alliances that Britain wants to pursue. We do indeed need to take this opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be, but the Prime Minister is deluding the country if she thinks that the UK will emerge stronger, fairer and more united from this Brexit plan.

The attempt to rebrand hard Brexit as clean Brexit does not survive a moment’s scrutiny. It will be destructive, messy and antagonistic, as indeed the Government’s contemplation of “no deal” suggests. There is overwhelming public support for free trade with the EU to continue, and the only true free trade is inside the single market. That is why Mrs Thatcher created it, and the Conservative manifesto last year pledged to stay inside it.

Do the Government expect to be thanked by millions of Britons, particularly young ones, who will lose their protection from data-roaming and flight cancellation rip-offs, as well as the freedom to live, work and study where they want? The Government’s claim that we will be a fairer country with workers’ rights enhanced is contradicted by Chancellor Hammond’s threat that we will be the Singapore of Europe, as a tax haven with slashed regulation.

The Prime Minster claims that we need hard Brexit to be more outward-looking and to reach beyond the borders of Europe, but that is perverse. The most obvious example of international co-operation is on our door-step—the very EU on whose single market she is turning her back. The contention that the UK needs to reject the EU to “go global” posits a completely false choice. The EU, with over 50 free trade agreements, is a gateway to the global stage, not an impediment to it, and leaving it risks exposing the UK and its people to the coldest winds of globalisation that the EU helps protect them from.

The Prime Minister is aligning the country with a protectionist incoming US President—ironically while the Chinese leader speaks at Davos in favour of free trade. She says that she wants the EU to succeed and for the UK to be its best friend, but the choice of hard Brexit aligned with Mr Trump and, through him, with President Putin and against Chancellor Merkel is a rejection not only of the single market and the European economic, social and human rights model but, indeed, a pact with those whose declared—not even hidden—objective is to subvert, divide and break up the EU and NATO, and thus the bedrock of our security.

The Prime Minister says that she wants us to be tolerant and a magnet for international talent but, by refusing a unilateral guarantee, she is sending a message of denigration and rejection of the 3 million EU citizens who already contribute so much to Britain’s economy and society, putting them through agonies of insecurity and subjecting them to the most Kafkaesque Home Office bureaucracy.

When the British people voted last year, they did not vote to live in a world where our values are replaced by ones set by Presidents Trump and Putin, so the case for a referendum on the Brexit deal, so that people can decide democratically whether they want a future as portrayed by this Tory Government, has been strengthened even further.

Brexit: Article 50

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Monday 7th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which I feel he had no hand in drafting. My guess is that he would have preferred to get on with allowing Parliament to trigger Article 50. Indeed, how much better it would have been if the Government had listened to the wise words of our Constitution Committee in September, when it said that a parliamentary vote would be needed. It is hard to understand why the Government are getting in such a tizzy about this. Rather like after their tax credit defeat, they overreact when faced by any challenge.

In September, I commented that,

“leaving the EU is not a simple step outside but a journey”.—[Official Report, 8/9/16; col. 1131.]

But will we leave Brussels via Dunkirk or Ostend, by train through Calais, by plane via Dublin or, heaven forfend, by the good ship “Titanic” piloted by Boris Johnson?

These are serious matters. In our economy, highly dependent on services, we have to secure a future for our creative, internet, design, legal, engineering and financial services and for intellectual property. We must be sure that our insolvency practitioners, chasing down funds for UK-based creditors, have access to squirrelled wealth in EU countries—currently allowed for under the mutual recognition of appointments—and that our lawyers retain rights of address and legal privilege. We need to safeguard the future of UK nationals living abroad as they lose their EU citizenship. We have to disentangle our competition law from that of the EU, law developed to protect consumers from monopolies and cartels, while helping our exporters, who will still be subject to EU competition rules.

Until we know the terms on which we will leave the EU and our relationship with the remaining 27 member states after we leave, we cannot negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, so the terms on which we disengage from the EU and their consequences should be debated in Parliament. Parliament needs to question whether the Prime Minister has the right negotiating objectives for how we leave the EU. What priority will she give to remaining in the single market? Is she safeguarding—indeed, promoting—our regions, which have done less well from globalisation? Is she seeking to enhance consumer, environmental and workplace protections? Are her objectives grounded in security considerations and promoting human rights and are they acceptable to the electorate?

The British people decided that we should leave the EU, but it is for Parliament, not simply Downing Street, to debate the exit details. Whichever route we take, we have a long journey ahead of us. In that time, my fervent hope is that we see no more of the British press, which ought to recognise the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of our judiciary, printing 72-point headings naming the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice as “Enemies of the people” simply for doing their job and pointing out that, constitutionally, the Government,

“does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 … for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union”.

The High Court ruling will not derail Brexit. However, given that the Government were caught short by the referendum result and none of the preparatory work was done in the case of a Brexit outcome, can the Minister assure the House that they will not find themselves in the same position this time if the judgment is upheld, and that a Bill is in preparation? Our EU committees have already started work on the myriad issues to be addressed. Could the Minister confirm that the Government will listen to the experience and knowledgeable words of these colleagues as they go forward?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I could not agree more with the assertion in it that implementing the decision to leave the EU means following the right processes, including securing the time to develop a detailed negotiating position. The right processes mean implementing the repeated pledge to honour UK parliamentary sovereignty and seeking parliamentary approval for the negotiating position.

By December, the Government will have lost six months in that process. In fact, they seem to be tying themselves up in knots trying to avoid such parliamentary involvement, getting bogged down in their misguided pursuit of executive autonomy over the Article 50 process in an unnecessary and delay-inducing court case. Their incoherence is displayed in having to offer special comfort deals to particular firms such as Nissan instead of being clear in regard to the single market and the customs union. This is creating destabilising uncertainty for all kinds of economic operators and other bodies. Now we hear the Prime Minister talk about putting on the table more visas for Indian nationals, while apparently immigration is treated as a barrier to the single market. That seems somewhat contradictory.

We must rely on leaks in the press to try and read the Government’s mind—or read the tea leaves. Indeed, there is much speculation about a Bill but no such indication in the Statement today. I join the noble Baroness in asking for clarification on that. We need a respectful relationship between Government and Parliament, one indeed sketched out in several reports of our own EU Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and one last month from the Constitution Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton. A lot of work and evidence went into those reports but the Government just brushed them aside.

The Government are not only behaving arrogantly towards Parliament when the political constitutional basis for Parliament’s role was in fact clear without the legal process, but also—to the dismay of people across the political spectrum—indulging in populist and xenophobic language, culminating in the failure to properly defend the institution of the judiciary. Freedom of the press may incorporate a freedom to criticise a particular judgment but not to indulge in scurrilous personal and institutional abuse of judges and the judiciary. It is very disappointing that neither in the days since the High Court judgment nor today have the Government rebuked the nature of the press comments notably in the Daily Mail and rather more shockingly in the Daily Telegraph, including the famous “enemies of the people” slogan evocative of Nazi Germany. It would be good to hear from the Government a condemnation of that kind of press coverage, and of the incitement to rioting in the streets from the former leader of UKIP, Mr Farage.

The Government say they intend to act on the decision to leave but it is on the character of that action that we need clarity since there are many different varieties of Brexit—probably more than 57. It is necessary to be respectful to those who voted remain if the Prime Minister genuinely wants to unite the country. The phrase in the Statement about giving no quarter is a rather disturbing signal.

Liberal Democrats in no way seek to undermine the negotiating position of the Government. Parliament having an overview of the objectives would not do so. Indeed, having the backing of Parliament, as was mentioned in our several reports, would strengthen the Government’s hand in those negotiations. We are not asking for details of particular trade-offs or red lines.

Any delay is down to the Government. If they act in good faith, there is no reason not to meet a March timetable. This does not mean a series of interesting but essentially purposeless general debates in which the Government stonewall, but an opportunity to get to grips with a concrete plan and a substantive strategy. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether the Government are planning to inform Parliament about their negotiating objectives in a White Paper, as is rumoured, and what kind of Bill they are planning to produce? The Government need to stop waffling and sidestepping and give us enough meat to be able to vote for the triggering of Article 50.

Next Steps in Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Monday 10th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I welcome the chance for the House to hear formally, rather than through the press, the decision to trigger Article 50 by the end of March and the plans for the great repeal Bill—a decision which otherwise, of course, we heard about on television. We trust that this is just the first of a number of regular attendances at the Dispatch Box to brief the House on the approach being taken and on progress being made. The decisions that the Government take over the coming months and years, regarding how we exit the EU and our new relations with both the remaining EU and the rest of the world, carry huge implications for us and for future generations.

I am old enough to remember, 44 years ago this month, that it took 69 Labour MPs to defy a three-line whip to take the UK into the Common Market, contributing to the Government’s 112 majority. Without those 69—which included the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan, Lord Owen and Lord Rodgers, Lord Hattersley, Lady Williams and Lord Sheldon, and our late colleagues Lord Barnett, Lord Roper and others—Ted Heath would have been defeated. We know the implication of that vote for my party, but all of us also know it was a parliamentary vote: a key, much-discussed, vital, and, for some of those involved, very brave vote that took us into Europe.

How, therefore, can the Government now say that the trigger—the starting gun from which there is no going back—can be fired without a vote in Parliament? The Minister spoke of returning sovereignty to the UK, yet the Government want to exclude Parliament from this process, not simply on triggering Article 50 but also in debating the negotiating terms or the evolving agreements. That is not making Parliament sovereign; it is sidelining Parliament.

Will the Minister explain why the Government will not reconsider their decision to rule out a vote on the basic terms they propose before Article 50 is triggered? We understand the Government were caught short, having had no plans for Brexit in their 2015 manifesto—indeed, they were committed to,

“safeguard British interests in the Single Market”.

They then forbade Whitehall from making plans for a leave vote. But that is no excuse for not being ready by early next year to articulate their approach. If the Government proceed to an exit deal without a vote in Parliament, their specific plans will never have the approval of the public or of Parliament. We therefore ask the Minister: when do the Government propose that Parliament should vote on their negotiating objectives?

We nevertheless accept—for some of us, with much sadness—the outcome of the referendum, but that result does not give the Government a blank cheque to negotiate away vital protections for workers, consumers, the environment or, indeed, the interests of business. Throughout these coming years and the complicated negotiations, the national interest—not just the Conservatives’ interests—must come first. Aside from defence and national security, and our continuing membership of Europol, the economy and jobs are central to the national interest. Yet, it appears from the Prime Minister’s statement to the Conservative conference that Brexit means hard Brexit and that continued access to the single market is at risk, with huge risks for the economy, jobs, business and working people. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will seek continued access to the single market on the best possible terms? Can he rule out a default position of falling back on to the WTO terms?

For my generation—perhaps for me in particular, having been born in a war-torn Germany in the late 1940s, growing up in a divided Europe, but then able to witness the blossoming of a free, open and prosperous Europe, built on free trade in a single market—the next two and a half years will be utterly demanding as we seek a new relationship with our continental allies. It is the defining issue of this Parliament and a major task for the House. Perhaps the Minister could tell us: when is the next parliamentary Session, when the great repeal Bill will arrive? Will he confirm that he will take the House with him every step of the way?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I start, though, by querying the claim that the mandate of 23 June was “overwhelming”. Compared with the overwhelming mandate of the 1975 referendum, which was a 2:1 vote, this was a narrow majority, sending a rather unclear message that the Government are overinterpreting. While it may have been a narrow decision to leave on 23 June, it was not the decision to trigger Article 50, which first requires a great deal more knowledge of the destination.

The Government’s conduct of the Brexit process needs to meet at least four criteria. First, given the enhancement of parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy promised by the Secretary of State in his Statement of 5 September, the pledge in the Conservative manifesto of 2010 to reform the use of prerogative powers, and the claim in today’s Statement that the,

“whole approach is about empowering this place”,

I am surprised by the Prime Minister’s refusal of a parliamentary vote. The claim is that sovereignty is being returned to the institutions of the UK. That must mean Parliament, but it is not being done. I would like the Minister to explain why.

The Constitution Committee of this House said in its report last month:

“It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences”.

I think that many in this House would agree with that. Indeed, Professor Mark Elliott, who is the legal adviser to that committee, has said in a blog that the Government’s “grounds of resistance” in the current litigation concede that permission is required from Parliament. They then say that permission was given by the referendum Act, which many of us would dispute, but they have conceded in that court case that Parliament’s permission is needed.

The second criterion, referred to by the noble Baroness, would be fulfilment of the 2015 Conservative manifesto pledge to stay in the single market. That is supported by the point stressed by the leave campaign that people voted in the 1975 referendum for the common market. Many people agreed with that, so, by implication, most people are happy to stay in the common market. Why are the Government not aiming to stay in the single market?

Thirdly, we need good governance. I perfectly agree that it is,

“now incumbent on the Government”,

as the Statement puts it, to deliver as orderly and smooth an exit as possible, providing maximum certainty for businesses and workers. Well, with business up in arms about the current uncertainty and the pound dropping like a stone, that is going well, isn’t it? The Government owe us all some certainty.

Fourthly, the Chancellor remarked that the British people did not vote to become poorer. That is on the cards, with import prices set to rise heavily in the new year, affecting everybody’s pocket and wallet.

Finally, the Government say that they want to move forward on a repeal Bill in parallel with the Brexit negotiations. Whatever the timing of such legislation, for which the implementation will fall due in 2019 at the earliest, it should not distract from the overwhelming need for this Parliament to be in the driving seat for the negotiations, and to not be a left-behind passenger.