Tributes to Mr Keith Phipps

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

We are here to serve.

In all the years he has been in your Lordships’ House, we have appreciated Mr Phipps’s company, efficiency and natural authority. We have always known who is really in charge. I hope he has enjoyed his time with us as much as we have. I had to smile at the comments of his late father, Ken, when he reflected in 2012:

“He enjoys his job I think—he has a little moan every now and then, but who doesn’t?”.


On a more serious note, it is both an honour and a pleasure to thank him on behalf of these Benches for his dedicated and unparalleled service to your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt that he has made his mark in the most positive way, for which we are extremely grateful.

Keith, we are going to miss you. We wish you and Sue, your wife, a very long and happy retirement. There is only one thing left to say: thank you and goodbye, Mr Phipps.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have seen Mr Phipps in two guises: as a doorkeeper here in your Lordships’ House and as a member of the Queen’s Bodyguard when I was captain of that august body. His attitude in both environments was that of an experienced NCO having to deal with a blundering second lieutenant who did not even know how to salute properly. He knew how it was done. I certainly did not, and I am sure that new Members of your Lordships’ House have felt similarly at sea when they first tried to work out how we do things here. But he has done that with everybody with an avuncular friendliness and firmness that has been extremely impressive.

At a time when the atmosphere in Parliament has sometimes been extremely fractious, he has helped to ensure that the ethos of your Lordships’ House reflects the tolerance and civility that, I am sure, we all believe should characterise the operations of a Parliament. We will miss him and the qualities he has brought to his roles, and I am sure we will all do our best to uphold the values he has brought to his work and our proceedings. We wish him and his wife a long and enjoyable retirement.

Chair of the European Union Committee

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will share the noble Baroness’s confidence, and mine, that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will take on this role with enthusiasm and great skill. His expertise in science and the law are key ingredients for evidence-based policy-making and analysis; that is essential, particularly at a time when some consider opinions superior to facts. We warmly welcome him to his new position.

It is also an honour to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, as he stands down. I first engaged with him many years ago when I was a newly elected MP and he was the shadow Minister leading for the then Opposition on the Minimum Wage Bill Committee —he remembers it well. It still holds the record for the longest ever Committee sitting in Parliament. I seem to recall that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke many a night in that same Committee Room. Despite some very long and late nights, then as now, he displayed his customary courtesy and good humour at all times.

At a time when the issue of our membership of the EU has fractured our politics, fragmented political parties, divided society and even split families, the work undertaken by our EU Committee and sub-committees remains essential and valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has acted at all times in the interest of your Lordships’ House to ensure that our debates would be well informed and timely. He can be proud of his record.

At times, it has been a difficult role. We hear that it has been seven years, three months—and I am sure he can tell us how many days as well. The noble Lord has always seen his work as service to this House and has been exemplary in fulfilling those responsibilities. We thank him and wish him well.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has presided for a long period over the work of the European Union Committee, but I think that it will be the work related to Brexit for which he will be remembered. I am sure that the unprecedented volume of reports from that committee have informed a very large number of people across the country. In particular, the first tranche of reports after the referendum drew to the House’s attention—and mine—a whole raft of detailed issues relating to Brexit, and although I thought I knew something about the subject, I realised that I was ignorant. I would like to thank him personally for my education—and more generally, on behalf of the House and the country, for the immensely educative job that the committee has been able to do.

I also thank him personally for his very open approach to consultation. As Chief Whip and Leader, whenever there has been a particular issue relating to my group or policy more generally facing the committee, he has been able to come and have a confidential discussion about it. I found this extremely valuable, and I believe that the approach is very much in the best traditions of the House.

We welcome the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to the job and wish him well. At the same time, we look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, resuming his full voice in future debates on Europe and more generally.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 5th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Whip for his very helpful explanation of how the business is working out. I wish to say a few words in proposing the new business Motion; I think that everyone wants to get on and have the substantive debates.

I would like to say a few thank yous. After a long night of debate, I want to reflect on how often this House—supposedly the senior House—sits so much later than the other place. It happens on many occasions.

First, I thank the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House for their courtesy and resilience last night in our numerous meetings to get to a position agreed by and acceptable to your Lordships’ House. I am grateful to them and to all noble Lords who, until very late in the evening, sat here and engaged in the debate. Their engagement on this difficult issue was amazing and people were very patient. I also thank all noble Lords who advised and engaged with us during our discussions.

It is also right that we as a House place on record our thanks to the staff, particularly of the three Front Benches. I mention specifically the doorkeepers and the staff of the House, whose courtesy, friendliness and helpfulness last night exceeded our expectations. They had no knowledge that we were likely to sit so late, but they did so with great charm; we are very grateful to them.

I beg to move.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I echo briefly the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in expressing thanks from these Benches for the Government Front Bench’s co-operation late in the evening, which enabled the House to deal with its normal business today rather than still being on a rather ridiculous merry-go-round. I also echo the noble Baroness’s thanks to our staff, especially the staff of the House, who kept the show on the road with their usual efficiency and cheerfulness.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am being heckled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to withdraw my Motion. If we were sure that the legislation, if passed in the House of Commons tonight, would go through your Lordships’ House in the usual way we do our business and it was guaranteed by all noble Lords that we would complete our deliberations and conclude prior to Prorogation, there would really be no need for my Motion.

[Lord Newby]

In an attempt to simplify matters, I support the idea of a simple, straightforward, short break, not to insert any other business, because that would be confusing, but to accept that any agreement reached among the usual channels in your Lordships’ House at 7 o’clock might be conditional on various things happening in the Commons in the next few hours. In that way, we would know what to do in various circumstances. I am loath to see a long pause, because if for some reason the good will, which I am pleased to see breaking out, did not lead to an agreement, we would be back to where we were, and the sooner we got back to where we were, the better.

As it is now 18.48, I should have thought that if we had half or three quarters of an hour, that should be perfectly long enough to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I thank the noble Lord in what is probably his first major outing as Chief Whip in your Lordships’ House. It has been quite a night. This has been a long debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have stayed the course and are still here. It shows how much this House values both the importance of the work we do and of the issue we are debating.

We can now confirm that we shall be able to complete all the stages of the Bill in your Lordships’ House in a time-honoured way by 5 pm on Friday. It was not an easy decision to table a Motion to ensure that we could continue our deliberations on the Bill and conclude them in good time. I understand the anxieties that were so eloquently stated by noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendments that this House has considered this evening. We recognise that such a Business Motion is a wholly exceptional response to the very unusual circumstances of the imminent Prorogation. We hope that it will not be treated as a precedent and that it will not have to be deployed again.

I thank all noble Lords for their patience. I had hoped to come back to your Lordships’ House earlier about the arrangements that were being made. Tomorrow morning, I shall be tabling a new Business Motion, which will confirm that we shall complete our consideration of the Bill by 5 pm on Friday 6 September.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I endorse the words of the Government Chief Whip and of the Leader of the Opposition. Passions run very high on this issue in your Lordships’ House, as they do across the country. It is not surprising that they have been high today. Carrying on through 24 or 48 hours, as we have been doing, in a sort of pathetic attempt to set a new Guinness world record for consecutive votes in your Lordships’ House, would not do anybody any favours.

These Benches felt it was key to ensure that this Bill, which we shall be receiving tomorrow, was able to finish its passage in your Lordships’ House before the weekend and that it would then get Royal Assent before Prorogation. With the assurances that we have had from the Minister, I feel confident that this will happen, so this is a positive outcome.

I cannot finish without thanking colleagues on my and other Benches who have supported us during a very long period. I am pleased that I will not be needing to use my duvet.

G7

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a bit puzzled, because I thought this was a Statement about the G7. If anything underlines the change of tone in government, it is the Statement we have just heard. As we go on, the noble Baroness may find some difficulty in having to repeat such Statements if the Prime Minister plays that way much longer. That sounded to me very much like a pitch to continue the bullying of MPs considering voting against him this evening. It sounded like a Prime Minister in election mode for an election he says he does not want. It was hardly statesmanlike; it was not prime ministerial. We wanted to hear about the G7 and got a rant from Boris Johnson about what he thinks about legislation before the House of Commons. It is inappropriate for this House.

The noble Baroness talks about the Bill being about Jeremy Corbyn, but the Bill she has referred to in repeating the Statement today actually has the signatures of two recent Conservative Cabinet Ministers on it. I wonder if we ought to consider whether these Statements should be repeated in the way they are.

I concur with the noble Baroness on one point, when she reflects that it is 80 years since we entered into the Second World War. It is worth reflecting on the sacrifices made by those engaged at home and in action abroad. It was the horror of that war that brought European countries together to engage and work. That was about not just trade but peace, values and co-operation. Today, those issues are more important than ever. I am sorry that was not reflected in anything we heard from the Dispatch Box today.

Shortly before the Prime Minister began his first performance—I think that is the right word for it—for world leaders at the G7 summit, he made a speech insisting that, on his watch, the UK would no longer retreat from the international stage. It begs the question: how have we found ourselves in such a tragic state, in which all this Prime Minister can hope for is to maintain the diminished role on the world stage that nine years of Conservative Governments have left us with? During the weekend in Biarritz—probably not the normal kind of weekend that the Prime Minister spends in Biarritz—he displayed zero ambition to improve the UK’s standing in the world and completely failed to set out a vision of how we can use our influence and experience to promote peace and prosperity. While he may have set the bar spectacularly low, aiming only not to retreat further from the global stage, judging from his act at the G7 summit, it sounds like he will fail even in that lowly aim.

I turn first to the climate emergency and, as the noble Baroness referred to, the heartbreaking situation in the Amazon. We have all seen the shocking images of flames engulfing what President Macron referred to as the “world’s lungs”. The announcement of extra funding to tackle the climate emergency will always be welcome; we will never criticise additional funds to tackle this issue. But the Prime Minister’s £10 million is a paltry sum. I do not understand the Government’s pointed refusal to work with UK companies to ensure that they are not aiding and abetting the destruction of the Amazon. I hope the noble Baroness can give us an explanation. There is also no excuse for the Prime Minister’s reluctance to fully engage the UN Security Council and the international financial institutions to promote policies to tackle the wider emergency.

It is not just about money. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is here, who has regularly spoken in your Lordships’ House about soft power. If utilised correctly by the Prime Minister, the UK’s influence can be worth far more to the global campaign than £10 million. If we understand the importance of implementing our ideals and ethics in our trade policy, we can do far more than play our part in tackling the climate emergency. I hope to hear something from the noble Baroness to explain the Prime Minister’s reluctance.

On trade, I hope that the role of the UK’s arms trade in fuelling the Yemeni conflict was not the reason the war did not feature heavily in the summit. The Red Cross informs us that hundreds have died during air strikes in recent days, and while the UK continues to supply arms to be used in the conflict, we can only assume that this dreadful bloodshed will continue. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether any world leaders made representations to the Prime Minister with regard to the UK’s role in this conflict?

On diplomacy and conflict prevention, as well as minimising any contribution that we have to international conflict, we should also use our influence and experience —our soft power—to eliminate the risk of conflict elsewhere. I would like to have heard how the Prime Minister attempted to use the summit for exactly that.

If we look towards Iran, it was useful that Iran’s Foreign Minister attended discussions at the summit, but did the Prime Minister make any attempt to meet Mr Zarif bilaterally? If he did, did he take the opportunity to raise the issue of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who remains in custody in Iran? I would think that the Prime Minister would take a personal interest in that case, given the effect of his previous comments. The UK should play a role in defusing the situation in Iran and moving to get the nuclear deal back on track, but there is nothing to suggest that the Prime Minister has any interest in doing this.

While the situation in Ukraine may not have featured heavily at the G7 summit, we have learned that Chancellor Merkel and President Macron will convene a summit with Russian and Ukrainian leaders. In the past, we could assume that the UK Prime Minister would play a role in promoting peace in the region. Can the noble Baroness tell us of any interest—I am not aware of any—the Prime Minister has shown? Will he be attending the upcoming summit with Chancellor Merkel and President Macron?

I want to say something about Hong Kong. The joint statement from leaders reaffirming the existence and importance of the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 is very welcome. But given our historical connection and ties to the region, the Prime Minister should have used the summit to stand more firmly against the abuses taking place. Police brutality is unacceptable and must end. While the joint statement included a call for violence to be avoided, can the noble Baroness confirm whether the Prime Minister urged for any further text to be added?

I was slightly puzzled by the words on education, which were not in the circulated text, criticising the Labour Party with regard to international education for girls. That was clearly inserted either as an ad lib by the Prime Minister or after the text was circulated. To suggest in any way that the Labour Party has not consistently and for many years supported girls’ education across the world is incredible. Indeed, I had hoped that tribute would be paid to the work of Gordon and Sarah Brown who, since he was Prime Minister, have made this issue their mission; they should be congratulated on that.

Finally, as the Prime Minister talks of retreat, I ask only that the Government be more ambitious in the role we can play in the world, in particular through soft power. We have the potential for enormous influence and that can be utilised, not only to promote the interests of people and businesses in the UK but to build a fairer and better world. We may live, particularly now, in a divided country but we also live in a more divided world, threatened by conflict, extreme poverty and the climate crisis. Should the Prime Minister make it to the next G7 summit, at Camp David, I urge him to be more confident about the role that the UK can play in reshaping the world. We should not accept a diminished role but use our influence to try to create a better world.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and hope that she enjoyed her short visit to Scotland last week.

We obviously share the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in respect of World War II. However, we on this side fear that the Prime Minister has simply not learned the lessons. The Statement is very keen on the benefits of free trade, which we applaud, and mentions in particular the Prime Minister’s discussions with the President of the United States on this matter. He says that he agreed with the President that healthcare would not be on the table, which is welcome. Did he also agree not to include items that would water down food standards? Was chlorinated chicken discussed? Given that the Prime Minister has said that he does not think we can do a trade deal within a year, how long does he think it will take to reach such a deal? How long would it be, even in theory, before any such deal could begin to make up for the loss of trade that we expect to flow from a no-deal Brexit?

The Statement does not mention the allegedly prolonged and acrimonious session at the summit in which the Prime Minister joined forces with the EU in opposing the readmission of Russia to the G7. Can the Leader confirm that the Prime Minister opposed President Trump on this? If he did, does not that demonstrate that in this, as in so many issues, our interests are much closer to those of Europe than the US?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, not only is more than half this Statement on Brexit but more than a third of it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the G7 summit and everything to do with the desperate plight in which the Prime Minister now finds himself. With the decision today of Phillip Lee MP to join the Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister has lost his majority in the Commons. It is clear from statements and interviews given by Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Rory Stewart and Justine Greening, among many others, that he is going to lose the vote later this evening. The usual fate of Prime Ministers is that the longer they stay in power, the more hubristic they become. The current Prime Minister, as with so many other things, has turned convention on its head and has behaved, against all the evidence and from day one, as though old Etonian swagger and bombast will be sufficient to carry the day. The truth, however, is that it will not.

The Prime Minister in the Statement spends a large amount of time trying to give the impression that negotiations on an alternative to the backstop and withdrawal agreement are well advanced but, as Donald Tusk put it at the summit,

“we are willing to listen to ideas that are operational, realistic and acceptable to all EU member states, including Ireland, if and when the UK Government is ready”.

The key words there are,

“when the UK Government is ready”,

for the truth is that the UK Government had not at the time of the summit put forward detailed proposals—or, indeed, any proposals—which would obviate the need for the backstop. As EU officials said, at the end of it there were,

“no new substantive elements from any side and obviously”—

obviously—

“not from the UK side”.

They said that a week ago, so perhaps substantive new proposals have been made since then. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether any detailed substantive proposals have been made over the past week which would obviate the need for the backstop? If so, when were they made, what has been the EU response, and on what day will they next be discussed by the UK and EU negotiators?

The Prime Minister said that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been working seven days a week to accelerate preparations for a no-deal Brexit, and we believe him. He says that we will be ready for such an eventuality. We are about to have a separate Statement on that issue so I will ask only two questions of the Leader of the House. When the Prime Minister talks of ensuring the uninterrupted supply of critical goods, does he include foodstuffs in the definition of “critical”? If so, on what basis does he believe he can guarantee the uninterrupted supply of all foodstuffs when the trade bodies representing the food sector simply disagree?

I was extremely pleased that the Statement covered the issue of species extinction, which was allegedly one of the Prime Minister’s three principal priorities going into the summit. That is a worthy priority. In recent times we have seen the extinction of the pig-footed bandicoot, the toolache wallaby and the indefatigable Galapagos mouse, among many others, and the world mourns their loss. The same will not be the case with the imminent demise of the present Administration.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I can assure them both that the Prime Minister made very clear at the G7 summit that we will continue to be an energetic partner on the world stage and will stand alongside our G7 allies in addressing the most pressing international issues. He used the summit to show that Britain remains an international, outward-looking, self-confident nation, and said that we will remain at the heart of alliances that span the world. We will continue to use the breadth of our expertise in diplomacy, defence and development to uphold and safeguard the global order on which our peace and prosperity depends.

The noble Baroness mentioned the devastating fires in the Amazon. She is right. As the Statement said, we have announced £10 million of new funding, which is an extension of an existing UK project, Partnership for Forests, which goes to the longer-term efforts against deforestation. Our money is not going to the Brazilian Government but to rural communities and businesses to help them develop while protecting forests and managing land sustainably. The noble Baroness may also be pleased to know that, in addition, together with international partners we have pledged that by 2020 we will mobilise $5 billion a year to help reduce deforestation and promote sustainable land use in the world’s tropical forest basins, including the Amazon, working with local communities. We engage regularly with the Brazilian Government, businesses and communities on a range of environmental issues, including sustainable agriculture, low carbon growth and deforestation.

The noble Baroness asked about trade. We are and remain a champion of free trade and a rules-based multilateral system with the WTO at its heart. The Prime Minister underlined the need for the G7 countries to work together within the current framework to address and resolve rising tensions on trade matters. We all agreed that the WTO needs an overhaul and further work is ongoing there.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked whether the Prime Minister had discussed standards of food safety and animal welfare. I can confirm that the Prime Minister made it clear that, along with the NHS, those issues were not on the table for discussions in relation to a trade deal.

The noble Baroness asked about Yemen. I am not aware of any direct representations being made to the Prime Minister but I am happy to seek confirmation of that and, if there are, I will write to her.

The noble Baroness also asked about the Iranian Foreign Minister. Only President Macron met him, but she will be aware that President Trump later indicated an openness to talks with President Rouhani under the right circumstances; we will remain supportive of any moves to achieve that. We remain concerned about the welfare of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and particularly about reports of tougher restrictions in relation to her sentence. We are in regular contact with her family, and our embassy in Tehran has consistently requested consular access.

Priorities for the Government

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 25th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating today’s Statement. I concur with her words about the Chief Whip. It feels as if he is having a daily testimonial at the moment, to which he is fully entitled, and he should enjoy it. I regard him as a genuine friend in the House. I have been his shadow in different jobs since I joined your Lordships’ House in 2010. I look forward to his contributions from the Back Benches and will still regard him as a friend in this House.

Dave Evans is also retiring today. His 24 years’ service to this House is a great achievement and shows true public service. I gather there are drinks on the Terrace for those who want to buy him a drink later today. The noble Baroness spoke about Theresa May as Prime Minister. She has had a tough time as Prime Minister, and I suspect she will show more loyalty from the Back Benches to her successor than she received. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness is still in her role, although I have more trepidation about some of her colleagues in the Cabinet. As I heard the announcements being made last night and today, it brought to mind one of my favourite TV programmes, “Yes, Prime Minister” because I could hear Sir Humphrey saying, “That’s very courageous, Prime Minister”. This is the noble Baroness’s first experience of repeating a Statement in the style of her new boss. She might have to work on the hand gestures.

In the first days on the job for any Prime Minister, bluster and bravado must meet reality. The new Prime Minister tells us he is presenting his blueprint for our country. I welcome his apparent change in tone on the value of public services, but he has to realise that despite the hyperbole in the Statement—that is what it is—the threat of no-deal Brexit creates enormous uncertainty. There is no clear plan about how we would cope with the risks to communities, families and British businesses or, indeed, the risk to the union. The Prime Minister says in the Statement that he will put the future of our union “beyond doubt”. It takes more than just words. Noble Lords are aware that there is a very real fear that the impact, particularly the economic impact which will be heavily felt, of no deal on Scotland will lead to further attempts to break up the union that we greatly value. On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister said that there are possible arrangements for the Irish border that are compatible with the Good Friday agreement. Can the noble Baroness tell us what they are? What does his commitment to the Good Friday agreement look like in the event of no deal?

On public services, a key part of the Prime Minister’s speech was about the apparently bright—I think he described it as broader and bolder—future of the UK, which appears to involve reversing large swathes of Conservative policy that he was previously in favour of. I am all for reversing Conservative Party policies. The Prime Minister has promised 20,000 new police officers, yet he was part of the Government who cut 21,000 police officers and as a result we have seen an increase in violent crime on our streets. I know the noble Baroness has a particular interest in education. She will know that our schools are struggling to cover basic costs. Some have even been forced into a four-day week. That was inevitable given that there has been an 8% cut in per-pupil funding since 2010. Education funding should not be regarded as an electoral convenience. Can the noble Baroness give assurances today that areas of greatest need will see their funding increased rather than reduced? We are also promised an increase in funding for our health service. Can she confirm that, as previously promised by the Prime Minister, it will add up to no less than £350 million extra a week? I saw it on the bus, so it must be true.

Over the years, many have laughed, some with, some at, Boris Johnson in his various guises. We can all enjoy slapstick buffoonery, whether it means dangling from a zipwire or falling over in a dirty pond. There is always space for a genial comedian, but that is not the role of the Prime Minister. Gaffes may appear endearing when you are an MP on the Back Benches, but in a Prime Minister they are potentially very dangerous. So, as he will have realised—I make special reference to Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe—words must be chosen with great care, for every word of a Prime Minister is a word on behalf of our country. They will be pored over and analysed, and they can, as we saw when he was Foreign Secretary, have great consequences.

Our country is now more divided than ever before. While the new Prime Minister obviously wants to carve out his own style, his duty has to be to try to heal the wounds. If there is to be a vision for our country, it has to be about confidence about our place in the world, being outward looking and being optimistic for the future. That cannot wait until 2050, as outlined in the Statement. Last year, we celebrated the centenary of some women gaining the vote. I remind the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House of the suffragettes’ wise motto: “Deeds not Words”. It is on our deeds that we are judged, not our words. It may come as a shock to Boris Johnson that that applies to him too. In the announcements made so far, it appears that the new Prime Minister is telling us that he rejects austerity and is heralding significant increases in public spending. What he has not told us is where the money is coming from and how we pay for and cope with the disaster of a no-deal Brexit. The true test will be delivery.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I shall begin with a number of congratulations. I congratulate Mr Evans on his retirement. The good news for Members of your Lordships’ House is that, on the basis that Parliament is at some point prorogued and we have another Queen’s Speech, he will reappear in his position as one of the Yeomen of the Guard. He cuts an even more impressive figure in that role than he does in his attendant’s garb here. He has been a huge source of help to Members, not least to new Members, and he will be much missed.

I said my congratulations to the Chief Whip on his retirement yesterday, and I would be very happy to do so again today—but I do not want it to go to his head, so I shall not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, deserves congratulations on being part of a successful minority—she has not been culled. I for one will be delighted to carry on working with her on a range of issues, not least harassment, where she has taken a very firm lead and I and other members of the commission have enjoyed agreeing with her.

There are two reasons for congratulating the Prime Minister. The first is, obviously, on getting elected and becoming Prime Minister in the first place, and the second is on showing the kind of consistency that one wants, in principle, from people. There were some who thought that, on becoming Prime Minister, he would stop inhabiting a fantasy world and would start behaving in a responsible manner and discussing issues with a semblance of reality. That hope has been dashed, and the Prime Minister is showing a degree of consistency in inhabiting his world of fantasy that is truly remarkable.

It began yesterday. He said about Brexit—and, in particular, a no-deal Brexit—that,

“the ports will be ready and the banks will be ready and the factories will be ready and business will be ready and the hospitals will be ready and our amazing food and farming sector will be ready”.

I now have the great pleasure and privilege of living in a rural area. I spent part of last Sunday talking to farmers and food processors about their view of Brexit, bearing in mind that if you produce lamb at the moment you will face a 40% tariff on 1 November. Their view is that the thing for which they are getting ready is bankruptcy, because there is no way that they can survive on their current business model the day after we leave the EU. Is that what the right honourable gentleman has in mind when he talks about them being ready? And, frankly, the same sort of readiness applies to the other sectors that he mentioned.

Even leaving aside that extraordinary Panglossian view of what life is likely to be like in 2050, there are a number of other areas in his Statement today where he exhibits the kind of fantasy that, in fairness, he has been promoting for a long time. The first relates to the Northern Ireland border. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, his views about being able to leave the EU, particularly without a deal, and having no problems at the Northern Ireland border are fantasy. He has said that under no circumstances will there be any checks on the Northern Ireland border. In the Statement he says:

“The evidence is that other arrangements are perfectly possible”.


The truth is that the evidence is that no other arrangements are evenly vaguely possible. So he is very good at asserting things, but their relationship to truth is something that he often struggles with.

The next fantasy is that we will,

“have available the £39 billion in the withdrawal agreement to help deal with any consequences”,

of no deal. One should bear in mind that there will be no deal immediately, but we will have great relations with the EU. We will have a great new arrangement, albeit without a deal on 31 October. Does anybody believe that a British Government will renege on paying a penny to the EU after 31 October? If they did, how would they survive? The Governor of the Bank of England correctly described our position as being reliant on the “kindness of strangers”. We have a massive balance of payments deficit, which will not go away, Brexit or no Brexit. So we need people to trust us so that they will lend us the money to survive. If that fantasy were pursued, our position would be even worse than would otherwise be the case.

Moving on, he says:

“Finally, we will also ensure that we continue to attract the brightest and best talent from around the world”.


As I have said before, the definition of brightest and best does not extend to many of the brightest and best in a whole raft of sectors, such as the brightest and best care workers, agricultural workers, lab technicians, health service workers and hospitality staff. He talks about an Australian points system. We already have a points system for immigration. In what respect will giving it an Australian accent suddenly change the way it operates and deal with the “brightest and best” problem for the rest of the economy?

Fantasies such as these are not a sound basis for government. It is not surprising that there are, in the Prime Minister’s words, some doubters, doomsters and gloomsters who believe that this reckless Government will be bad for the whole country, and that you will not find any group or organisation that will go from strength to strength under Boris. However, they are wrong. Excluding the old Etonians and extreme Brexiteers, there is one group that is already benefiting from Brexit and will continue to benefit as long as Boris Johnson remains in office. The rest of the country is in for a very hard time—but the Liberal Democrats are on the rise.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

He will have heard the response. We are very grateful to him.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the probing question asked by the noble Baroness in respect of the Joint Committee. I also echo her comments about the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, with whom I have worked in both government and opposition. Views differ across the House about the achievements or faults of the coalition, but they were a strong and stable Government. In this House, that was possible in no small measure because of the efforts of the noble Lord and the collaborative spirit in which he worked with me and my colleagues. In opposition, he was always extremely affable—almost always—and, more importantly, absolutely straight to deal with. Far removed from the stereotype of the scheming, unreliable Chief Whip, he would certainly not form a model character for one of his noble friend Lord Dobbs’ novels. With those positive sentiments, could I also say: could he just have a word with his colleagues in the Commons and ask them to get a move on?

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 24th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for her comments about my noble friend Lord Prescott. I am sure that the whole House concurs. We wish him a full and speedy recovery.

It has been some time since we have had a European Council or Brexit-related Statement, but now we hear that we will have two in a very short space of time. I am sure that the Prime Minister is delighted. It is an extraordinary position, given the urgency of the issue. Perhaps it is a reflection on the state of the Government on Brexit. Back in March, the Government’s request to extend the Article 50 period was agreed by the EU 27. Despite the previous commitment, as we were told, that the UK would not, under any circumstances, participate in the European Parliament elections, the Government were forced to do just that to secure the further extension. The results of those elections were unsurprising, and the issue of Europe has now forced the resignation of a second Conservative Prime Minister in a little over three years.

However, any hope that the Conservative leadership race, including a refreshingly honest campaign by Rory Stewart, would inject a bit of realism into the Brexit saga was short-lived. The man most likely to become the next Prime Minister continues to display a wilful ignorance, asserting that we can leave with no deal in October but still benefit from a transition period and the continuation of tariff-free trade. Either he does not understand the importance of ratifying a withdrawal agreement in order to secure a transition period or he is willing to mislead the country in his quest to enter No. 10. Neither of those possibilities reflect well on him; nor do they suggest that, as Prime Minister, he would be able to negotiate a close and mutually beneficial ongoing relationship with the EU 27. Jeremy Hunt initially pledged that he was willing to take the country out of the EU with no deal and that it was his firm intention that our exit would take place on 31 October, but that, as the slightly more sensible candidate, his preference is for a deal, even if it takes a little extra time. With clarity like that, it is not hard to understand why our European neighbours find British politics so confusing and frustrating.

A no-deal Brexit—the worst possible outcome—is, as the clock ticks down, a real and frightening possibility. I had hoped to hear from the noble Baroness today that Mrs May had emphasised that the UK would do everything possible to avoid that scenario, but we did not. That is why I have tabled a Motion for debate next Wednesday, 3 July—your Lordships can see it in the green sheets of House of Lords Business—to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to explore the costs and implications of a no-deal exit. Our aim is to be helpful to Parliament in investigating and reporting back with hard facts, not just views or opinions.

To return to the matter at hand, this summit provided Mrs May with the opportunity to bid farewell to her fellow leaders and pave the way for the new Prime Minister. However, with Mr Johnson currently most likely to win the keys to Downing Street, perhaps this was the moment of realisation. There were some warm words for Mrs May, including from an unlikely source in the form of President Macron. Perhaps he was recalling a song from Joni Mitchell in which she sang,

“you don’t know what you’ve got

Till it’s gone”.

This summit highlighted that, while Theresa May is still in office, she is not in power. That is not entirely her fault. The UK lost considerable influence under David Cameron, and Mrs May’s authority has been undermined both by members of her Cabinet and by her Back-Benchers. Nevertheless, last week’s meeting made it clear that, although Mrs May had a seat at the table, the UK had lost its voice. In years gone by, the UK has been a decisive player in allocating the EU’s top jobs, including gaining the office of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in 2009—a position held by the former Leader of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. Under the last Labour Government, we were instrumental in advancing collective international action, both within the EU and beyond, to prevent a climate catastrophe.

The outcomes of this summit matched expectations in the run-up to it. There was no agreement on appointments, meaning, as we have heard, further discussions and another summit in the days and weeks to come. Despite the UK Government having been pushed, via an Opposition day Motion in the Commons, into acknowledging the urgency of dealing with the climate emergency and setting a target of zero emissions by 2050, the EU’s commitment is disappointing. I understand that the position was watered down by member states, including Poland, one of Mrs May’s strongest allies. Given the urgency of the issue, I hope that the Prime Minister pressed Poland and others to accept a stronger position. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether the Prime Minister made any attempt to gain support from Poland and whether she had any bilateral discussions with the head of that country.

Whatever happens next with Brexit, the next Prime Minister must recognise the importance of the UK and the EU working together to protect the environment. All the issues raised by this summit—disinformation and hybrid threats, climate change and external relations regarding Russia—are ones on which EU co-operation is absolutely vital and in which the role of the UK could and should have been positive. What could have been an optimistic and ambitious start to a new institutional cycle was instead a sign of a Europe in flux. Populist rhetoric and climate change scepticism are on the rise, and not just in the Conservative Party.

Mrs May obviously wants to secure a more positive legacy, both at home and abroad, than that of her predecessor. She could have tried to use this summit to that end. Sadly, it echoed her premiership: an exercise in mismanagement and missed opportunities, and that, sadly, will be her legacy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and join her in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, a speedy recovery and all our good wishes.

I do not know whether noble Lords saw the interview given by the Prime Minister as she arrived at last week’s Council meeting. It made me wince because she was asked, in effect, what she was hoping to get out of the meeting for the UK. The answer was, in effect, “Nothing”. She went with no authority at home and no locus for intervening substantially on any of the real discussions. I have been trying to decide when the UK last had such little influence in the affairs of Europe as a whole, but I cannot think of such a time. No doubt other Members of the House, particularly the historians, will be able to help me, but I suspect they too will be struggling.

The Council discussed some of the most crucial issues facing us: climate change, the disinformation threat to our democracies and external relations with our neighbours including Russia and Turkey. On all the conclusions reached, as the Statement makes clear, the UK was in agreement. On climate change, for example, the fact that a large majority of member states have signed up to reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 is in no small measure as a result of UK leadership on this issue over a number of years.

But the Council also adopted a new strategic agenda for the next five years, a decision about which the Statement makes no mention at all. Normally, when I see the words, “strategic agenda”, my eyes glaze over, but I have read this document; I wonder whether the Leader of the House has done so too. It is extremely wide-ranging and covers,

“protecting citizens and freedoms”,

economic development,

“building a climate-neutral, green, fair and social Europe … promoting Europe’s interests and values in the world”,

and “how to deliver” on its policy priorities. Everything in this strategy chimes in with the kind of Europe and world which we on these Benches have spent our political lives trying to promote.

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether there is anything in this strategy with which the Government disagree? If not, how do they think the UK can help achieve its aims while outside the EU, outside the negotiating chamber and outside the institutions which will be absolutely key if the strategy is to be made to work? The truth is that the EU’s agenda is our agenda. It is not Trump’s agenda, nor Putin’s, nor Modi’s, nor Xi’s, nor that of any other significant player on the world stage; yet these are the people whom the Brexiteers are asking us to embrace. To be unable to participate in implementing this strategy when we leave the EU would reduce the EU’s effectiveness in all the crucial areas it covers, as well as our own. Both of us would be losers.

The other thing that the Council covered was who should occupy the top posts in the EU for the period ahead. There were—indeed are—some excellent Liberal candidates, such as Margrethe Vestager for Commission President and Mark Rutte for President of the Council. It was one of the most oft-repeated arguments during the referendum that we had such people foisted on us, with no say; of course, as full participating members, we did have a major say. The irony is that, if and when we vote to remain in the EU at some point over the next 12 months, we will, for the first time ever, be a member state that will have had no say on who occupies these top posts.

This, however, is the least of the challenges we now face as a country. We have a Government with no effective majority, a potential Prime Minister who is the laughing stock of the world, and a Commons which cannot agree on any form of Brexit. The only way out of this shambles is a referendum on whether to remain in the EU followed by a general election to sweep out this Government. Only when we have done so will a British Prime Minister again be able to hold their head up at a future EU Council meeting, and in the world more generally.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for his statement. It is rare that we hear him speak for so long; perhaps we shall hear more from him in due course.

I am grateful for the statement. My noble friend Lord McAvoy and I welcome the rescheduling of the important economic debate for the Chamber rather than the Moses Room, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes raised last week. However, it is a sign of how this Government’s handling of Brexit has dominated the political landscape and crowded out everything else.

I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who finds it quite incredible that here we are, just eight sitting days from the Government’s self-imposed deadline for exit day, and the Prime Minister is still clinging on to her discredited deal as the best the UK can get. She appears determined to batter MPs into submission to agree it. At least the Government are now seeking an extension to Article 50. If the Prime Minister’s deal is not agreed by MPs, any extension must be used to produce a different outcome and not just to rehash the same rejected deal.

To return to the point I made a few months ago in Questions, the Prime Minister’s latest wheeze is apparently to offer a “Stormont lock”, in effect giving her friends in the DUP a veto on UK-wide future regulation if they vote with her on the deal. Yet again, it is a short-term fix with no thought for the wider impact, including the constitutional implications for the other devolved Administrations. We know that there are special circumstances relating to the Irish border, but this seems like political expediency designed to suit the Conservative Party and the DUP, especially given the Government’s failure to get the Northern Ireland Executive up and running again.

I asked last week when the Government would give legislative effect to the decision by the House of Commons to reject no deal. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, declined to answer. The problem is that the only reason that we are still dealing with no-deal Sis—there are relatively few left to deal with—is the Government’s incompetence. The Prime Minister clings to her belief that to threaten us with a crash-out disaster is an ingenious strategy.

I take the point made by the Chief Whip that he must prepare for all outcomes. Should Mrs May’s belligerence mean that we still crash out, these regulations will be needed. It is to the Government’s shame that we will not know until Thursday whether there will be an extension to Article 50. Many of us find it ludicrous that, with all that we could be doing, with all the issues that this country needs to address and resolve, Parliament has had to spend time rushing through contingency arrangements when even the impartial Civil Service has been clear with Ministers that 29 March is unachievable. On a point of clarification, I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, was that he did not trust the Government not to crash out without a deal.

There were questions that were not answered in the Chief Whip’s statement. I would be grateful if he could address them, because your Lordships’ House has struggled to get an answer to them. First, we have been told that the Government will table all necessary legislation for a no-deal Brexit. What are those Bills and where are they? Can the Chief Whip list them today for the convenience of the House?

Secondly, should an extension to Article 50 be granted, what legislation will be required to give effect to it? My understanding is that there will need to be an SI to change the exit day. Will that be it or is anything else required?

Thirdly, as I asked last week and did not get an answer, when will the Government bring forward legislation, whether by SI or in another form, to give effect to the House of Commons’ rejection of no deal as an option?

The Minister will recall that I asked last week whether the Government were considering Saturday sittings. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was unable to answer then; can the Chief Whip do so today?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the truth is that the Government Chief Whip has put a brave face on a farce. The position is that the Commons decided last week that it would press for a rejection of no deal and an extension of Article 50. It has been perfectly clear all along that any such reasonable request would be accepted by the European Council at the end of this week, so the only basis on which the Government are pursuing these no-deal SIs is that they simply have no faith in their own ability to enact what the Commons has asked them to do and what the EU has said it is prepared to do.

I want to ask about the disappearing primary legislation relating to Brexit. Even if the Government were to get their deal through, there are a number of pieces of primary legislation that they say will be necessary at the point we leave the EU, particularly the immigration, Agriculture and Fisheries Bills. None yet has a scheduled date for Report in the House of Commons, which I assume means that they cannot come to this House on the planned schedule until after Easter. There will then be about eight weeks until 30 June, which is the point at which the Government say they wish their extension to come to an end and, presumably, leave the EU. May I have an assurance from the noble Lord that these pieces of primary legislation, which are deemed necessary—indeed, essential—by the Government, will be brought to your Lordships’ House, if the Government succeed in getting their deal through, in a timely manner, so that we do not have the same kind of farcical rush we have been expected to endure on other matters?

I also want to ask the Minister to deny the rumours that have been swirling around the House in recent days that the Government plan to curtail the Easter Recess and that, just as in February, noble Lords will be expected to be in Parliament, business or not, when they are currently planning to be away. Finally, given all the uncertainty surrounding the Government at the moment, will the Chief Whip give the House an undertaking that, in the light of what happens at the weekend, he will return to the House next Monday and explain what is going on?

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I listened carefully but I do not think that any of us are any the wiser having heard it for a second time. I am not clear about the purpose of today’s Statement. As we have come to expect, the Government have precious little to report.

Like many noble Lords, I remember the days when Prime Ministers made Statements of substance that genuinely updated Parliament and provided new information—Statements that showed true leadership. In today’s Statement, the Prime Minister has not told us anything that we do not already know. We already know that in opening the negotiations, Mrs May set out a series of unhelpful and unrealistic red lines; for example, in ruling out a new comprehensive and permanent customs union. We already know that she sought legally binding changes to the backstop, replacing it with alternative arrangements to prevent a hard border—but the only reason for the backstop is that the Government were unable to identify any viable alternative arrangements. We already know that the EU emphatically rejected reopening negotiations on the agreement signed by the Prime Minister in November. We already know that Mrs May consistently and irresponsibly refuses to rule out leaving the EU without a deal, even though her own Government’s economic analysis shows that this would be hugely damaging.

Today’s Statement confirms that the Prime Minister has made no progress other than holding a series of further meetings to debate the exact same issues she has been debating for nearly two years. If media reports are accurate, the EU is totally bewildered that she seeks to return to the negotiating table while refusing to budge even one inch from those Lancaster House red lines. How many deadlines has the Prime Minister now missed? The agreement was supposed to have been reached in October; the original vote was pulled in December; and now there is not even a guaranteed vote on the revised deal before the end of the month. Each week MPs are told to expect a meaningful vote the following week, only for it to be delayed again and again.

Having seen off most of the amendments that she considered unhelpful last time, the Prime Minister’s request for another two weeks might just about give her Whips something to work with. But that all too familiar mantra that the only way to avoid leaving the EU without a deal is to support her deal points to a strategy to just run down the clock until the only options are her deal or no deal. As I and other noble Lords have said countless times, that is grossly irresponsible. The Prime Minister tells others to hold their nerve while she engages in her favourite pastime—it used to be played in the playground when I was 12—of kicking the can down the road. While she tells business and industry to hold their nerve, they are losing patience and being forced to make decisions factoring in the worst possible scenario—as we have seen from the Nissan decision on investment in Sunderland.

Part of me really wants to believe that the Prime Minister, a former Home Secretary, is simply too smart and too patriotic to be responsible for a catastrophic crash out of the EU, but we all know—though it is not in the Statement—that intense and expensive preparations are now being made for a crash-landing no deal. Can the Leader remind us of the Government’s budget for no deal? Can she tell us how many meetings she has personally attended with other Ministers and/or officials where no-deal preparations have been discussed? Can she confirm that, despite there being just 45 days to Brexit, with firms hired for no-deal contingencies being stripped of their contracts and police forces hiring personnel for crisis centres, this topic was not even discussed in any detail at today’s Cabinet meeting? Can she tell us why the legislation that the Government tell us is so necessary, deal or no deal, is being held up by the Government? The Report stages of the Agriculture and Fisheries Bills have not even been scheduled in the House of Commons, despite the Government cancelling the February Recess.

The Opposition have provided a clear alternative that we believe could gain the support of a majority of MPs and find favour with the EU. It is all very well the Minister laughing, but his alternative proposals—the proposals from his Government—have been soundly rejected by the House of Commons, and nothing further has come back from the Commons that can gain the confidence of Parliament. This is far too serious to be laughing about the situation.

Let me repeat that. We have provided an alternative that we think could gain the support of a majority of MPs and find favour with the EU—despite the Minister’s smirks. The Prime Minister has ruled out that alternative in favour of her rejected deal and the hopeless aim of reopening a closed legal agreement. This is my final question to the Leader of the House: if the EU 27 refuse to shift and the Prime Minister is unable to get agreement from Parliament for her deal, what will she do then? Will she accept the need to extend the Article 50 period, or will she simply march the country off the cliff edge?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, given that we are now only six weeks from the date on which we are due to leave the EU, this is a most remarkable Statement. It basically says that, despite her trips to Brussels and Ireland, her hard stare at Juncker and dinner with Varadkar, the Prime Minister has made no progress whatsoever in offering—far less negotiating—credible new terms on which we might leave the EU.

The Prime Minister’s cricketing hero is Geoffrey Boycott, who had a test average of 47.7. By comparison, I am afraid, the Prime Minister’s Brexit negotiations average is close to negligible. It seems that, rather than the somewhat pedestrian Boycott, her real hero comes from Dickens. I wonder when she first read about Mr Micawber and his optimistic but desperate philosophy that disaster would be averted simply by something turning up. This has clearly been adopted by the Prime Minister as her guiding principle. Of a more positive agenda there is no sign, and in two areas in particular this calamitous lack of leadership is seriously irresponsible.

First, it is now clear that it is impossible to get through all the necessary Brexit-related legislation by 29 March. Even if a deal were eventually agreed by the Commons, an extension of the Article 50 period would be necessary, if only to get this legislation through. By all accounts, the Prime Minister realises this. But instead of being open and asking for an extension herself, she is waiting to be defeated on this in the Commons, at which point she will go to Brussels, blame the Commons, and ask for one then. She is adopting the example of the French revolutionary leader, who, pursuing the mob, exclaimed, “I am their leader. I must follow them”. It is a complete and abject abrogation of leadership.

Secondly, there is the impact that lack of any certainty is having on the business community. Noble Lords may have read in the Sunday Times of the Wiltshire-based cheesemaker who sells a third of her product to Canada, and who is now having to suspend further shipments because she simply does not know on what basis they might be allowed into Canada after 29 March. Hers is one of thousands of businesses in the same boat. Talking of boats, there are ships ready to sail to and from the Far East which are not due to reach their destination until after 29 March. What advice on tariffs, labelling and standards are the Government giving those contemplating putting their goods on these ships?

More generally, the impact of the Government’s indecision is crippling the economy. Yesterday’s GDP figures, the fall in manufacturing output, the collapse in investment and the inevitable worsening of the public finances mean that you can forget windy rhetoric about the end of austerity. The public finances will inevitably weaken now, whatever Brexit path is chosen.

The only suggestions which the Prime Minister took to Brussels were either non-negotiable, such as a legally binding time limit or exit clause to the backstop, or non-specific: the so-called alternative arrangements. There was zero chance of these being acceptable to the EU. At one level, therefore, it is no surprise that she is putting off meaningful votes for another fortnight—there is nothing new to vote on. It is, however, somewhat depressing that it looks as though the Commons will not seek to force any of the issues on Thursday of this week. The clock will simply continue ticking, ever louder, for another fortnight. With 29 March so close, this brinkmanship is damaging and dangerous.

The Prime Minister, and I am sure the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, will be well aware that Geoffrey Boycott had a reputation for running out his batting partner in order to save himself. It seems that the Prime Minister is willing to leave the country stranded in order to save the Tory party. It is a demeaning strategy and one which deserves to fail.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I concur at the outset with the Prime Minister’s comments about Northern Ireland. It is an ongoing situation. As a former Minister in Northern Ireland, I know the impact that this will have on local communities. With all the work that has gone in over the years to bring peace to Northern Ireland, this will be devastating to so many. It proves how right it was that, across both Houses and across all parties, people worked together to get the Good Friday agreement and bring peace and stability to local communities.

We requested that this Statement be taken earlier in the day and that the time for Back-Bench contributions be extended. I am sorry that the Government were unable to accept that and rejected that request. However, after reading the Statement, I think I understand why. There is not much that is new or of any real substance. The Prime Minister made her Statement today as a direct result of Dominic Grieve’s amendment, which accelerated the timescales previously laid down in legislation, giving her three days to respond to the decision of the House of Commons.

This Statement is another reminder for your Lordships’ House of the value of the meaningful vote provisions in the withdrawal Act, which originated from an amendment passed in your Lordships’ House that required the Prime Minister to return to Parliament if her proposed deal—her “plan A”—was defeated. It was—overwhelmingly. But while Brexit remains Brexit, plan B does not mean plan B. It does not even look like an A+, perhaps more like an A-.

Following a historic and unprecedented defeat for the Prime Minister’s agreement, Mrs May offered to talk to MPs from all parties, with the Government approaching those meetings in what she called “a constructive spirit”. Yet it appears that the constructive spirit lasts only as long as it takes to agree with the Prime Minister. Despite having been challenged by the parliamentary leaders of all opposition parties—excluding the DUP, of course—to take a no-deal exit off the table, Mrs May has held firm and refused to do so.

We know that, under Article 50 and the withdrawal Act, no deal is the legal default, but the Government can change that. The Prime Minister should certainly acknowledge that it would be a calamitous outcome for the UK and therefore that it is of no value at all as a bargaining position. If the threat of a no-deal exit was being used by Mrs May to shore up support for the plan A deal, it was a spectacular misjudgment and failure. She rightly promised a change of approach, including a greater role for Parliament in setting the mandate for future trade negotiations. But, once again, within days we find out that nothing has changed. The Prime Minister said in her Statement that she had,

“listened to colleagues across Parliament from different parties and … different views”.

She might have listened, but she is clearly not truly hearing what people are saying.

A constructive spirit means willingness to compromise from all parties. In any negotiation that must be the starting point or there is simply nothing to be gained. It is no good the Prime Minister meeting the hardliners in the European Research Group and the DUP while sending her de facto deputy and her chief of staff to meet others on the other side of the argument. It is no good ruling out an option—an EU-UK customs union—that the Opposition support and the EU appears to be willing to negotiate while continuing to risk a chaotic no-deal exit that would leave citizens, businesses and communities with no certainty whatever.

Yet, rather predictably, the Prime Minister has today presented a so-called plan B that, as I have said, looks extraordinarily similar to her plan A: go back to Brussels for further talks, even as the clock ticks down; ask again for concessions on the backstop, even though the EU has been clear that it is not up for renegotiation; and then blame others for holding up Brexit, even though it is the Government who have negotiated an agreement that has been comprehensively rejected by all parties. In this House, we passed a Motion by an overwhelming majority, believing that the agreement would weaken our prosperity, security and global standing.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness can confirm this, but according to media reports on Friday Mrs May held a series of crisis phone calls with EU leaders, including Chancellor Merkel, in the wake of her historic defeat. Despite her offer to hold talks with opposition parties and build a cross-party consensus behind a new deal, EU diplomatic sources said that the Prime Minister’s demands were in fact completely unchanged—something that was “greeted with incredulity”. She has clearly made a conscious decision to reject common-sense solutions that could bring politicians and voters of all colours together in order to have another attempt at securing concessions and assurances that she has already failed to win back in December. It appears that this is simply an effort to keep her premiership alive—or, if not alive, at least on life support.

The Prime Minister ignores at every step of this process the fact that her hardliners have shown that they will not be swayed. They have undermined her authority at every turn and taken her right to the brink. Their opposition to the deal is as strong as Mrs May’s stubborn determination not to cede any ground to others, even if this could gain wider support and prevent a no-deal or a blind Brexit. This was highlighted at the weekend when a former Downing Street adviser was asked by Andrew Marr whether he had ever seen Theresa May compromise. His response? “I can’t think of one off the top of my head”. In other words, everyone—the Opposition, the EU 27, Cabinet members and Back-Benchers alike—has to shift position: everyone except Theresa May. That is no way to run a Government or a country and it is no way to conduct one of the most important and complex negotiations that a UK Government have ever participated in. If the Prime Minister’s objective is to deliver a Brexit that can bring the country back together, I have to say to the noble Baroness that that approach is doomed to failure.

While I disagree with much of the Prime Minister’s approach on Brexit, I welcome the clarity offered on the Good Friday agreement. I am sure I am not the only noble Lord who was concerned—we heard earlier that many noble Lords were—by the comments reported over the weekend. It surely must always be inconceivable that the Government would seek to reopen that agreement as a way of trying to break the impasse on the EU issue. Doing so would be completely unacceptable. It will be good if the noble Baroness could reinforce that in her comments.

I also welcome Mrs May’s announcement relating to the waiving of fees for EU citizens applying for settled status. That is another issue on which your Lordships’ House spoke early in the Brexit process and the Government should have acted months ago. We also welcome the commitment that we have asked for before that Ministers will brief Select Committees in confidence, rather than the only option being for MPs to force an issue by action on the Floor of the House of Commons. Could the Leader of the House confirm that this briefing will extend to our own EU committees and that they will also be briefed in confidence? I welcome the belated recognition that the Prime Minister needs a negotiating mandate from Parliament.

With each Statement and each vote, we continue edging towards 29 March and the disaster that would be no deal. I have a couple of questions for the Leader of the House. First, if, when the House of Commons has its debate next Tuesday, it instructs the Government to take a no-deal outcome off the table, how will the Prime Minister respond?

Secondly, however Mrs May responds to next week’s Commons votes, can the Leader of the House confirm that there will be the opportunity to consider the outcome in your Lordships’ House? I know that a formal Statement will be repeated, but she will recall that last week the Prime Minister made a point of order at the end of business. However the Statement is made, it would be helpful if this House could consider the outcome and Mrs May’s comments.

Finally, with so few legislative days available between now and 29 March, will the Government build on their commitment to engage with Select Committees and release the relevant clauses of the draft EU withdrawal agreement Bill to the Constitution Committee to enable some form of pre-legislative scrutiny? When the noble Baroness comes to answer those questions, I urge her to bear in mind her oft-repeated assurance that the Government are planning for all eventualities. As always, the House remains ready to be helpful to the Government, but we have stressed time and again that that can happen only if we have the relevant information at our disposal.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and echo the comments in it about Northern Ireland. This is a truly remarkable Statement, following the largest ever defeat of a Government on a major policy issue. If one loses a vote by 230, common sense dictates that there is something very flawed with the proposal that suffered the defeat, and that to get support for a replacement proposition some considerable changes will be needed. What magnitude of change does the Prime Minister think is required to turn things round?

The Prime Minister was very clear. “My sense”, she said, is that three changes are needed—just three. Here they are: first, being more flexible in involving Parliament in negotiating the future relationship with the EU; secondly, embedding the strongest possible protections on workers’ rights and the environment; and, thirdly, finding an alternative way to deliver no hard border in Northern Ireland. That is it; problem solved. But involving Parliament to a greater extent has been forced on the Prime Minister and will happen whatever she says or does. Workers’ rights and the environment are very important, but so are myriad other issues. The Government have never said that they would dilute protections in those areas anyway, so why is that a change? If there is a more universally acceptable alternative to the backstop for Northern Ireland, it would surely have been found ages ago. The Government’s proposal for a bilateral treaty with Ireland—today’s latest wheeze—was killed off the moment it saw the light of day.

Of the more substantive changes that the Prime Minister could have advocated but has ruled out, three stand out. First, there is ruling out no deal. The Prime Minister summarily rules this out, despite knowing that a large majority in the Commons, and probably in her Cabinet and Government, is strongly opposed to it. This just seems foolhardy.

Secondly, there is suspending Article 50. I suspect that if there is any proposition that would gain overwhelming support in Parliament, it is that Article 50 has to be extended, come what may. Even in the unlikely event of the Government gaining support for the deal, the idea that they could pass all the legislation required before 29 March without invoking emergency powers is completely fanciful.

Thirdly, there is a referendum. The Prime Minister has at least stopped repeating the nonsense that it would take a year to organise such a poll, but has said that it would be difficult to do so before the European Parliament elections. As my colleague and noble friend Lord Tyler has shown with his draft Bills, it would not be difficult in the slightest to have a people’s vote in May. As for the Prime Minister’s assertion that such a vote would threaten social cohesion, it is surely much less of a threat than trying to force through a deal which has neither the support of the Commons nor, more importantly, of the people as a whole.

It must be clear to everyone except the Prime Minister herself that her sense of what will secure a Commons majority is simply wrong. It is unsurprising therefore that Back-Benchers are seeking methods to take the initiative. There has been much criticism of plans by Nick Boles, Dominic Grieve, Yvette Cooper and others to allow the Commons to decide its own business, as this would require a change to Standing Orders. It is obviously up to the Commons to decide how it runs its affairs, but it is worth recalling that the Standing Order which gives government business priority was introduced by Gladstone in the 1880s to stop filibustering by Irish MPs and allow decisions to be taken. It was a straightforward political fix. It has, however, like many things in Parliament—such as the Barnett formula, possibly—metamorphosed over time from a fix to a sacred constitutional principle. It is no such thing. As a political heir to Gladstone, I am pretty sure that the grand old man would now be arguing for the rules to be changed, and I hope that they are.

As for your Lordships’ House, we will have a debate next Monday—presumably on a take-note Motion. As was the case last week, however, this hardly seems adequate, and I suspect that we will need to reconsider a Motion which again firmly opposes no deal and possibly covers other issues.

I know that Jean-Claude Juncker is not everyone’s favourite, but he surely got it right today when he said: “Don’t look for answers to Brussels. This is the moment for London to speak, not for us”. Today’s Statement shows that, if he awaits the Prime Minister for a viable way forward, he will be waiting for a very long time. We simply do not have that time.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as we start this Committee stage of the Trade Bill, my amendment seeks to be helpful to your Lordships’ House in finding a constructive framework for further scrutiny of the Bill following Committee. It is now well over a year since the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and I think that the 132 days since the Second Reading in your Lordships’ House set a record.

Following consideration in the other place, the Bill was passed to us to undertake our responsibility of scrutiny in the normal way, and we will fulfil that obligation. My amendment recognises that, in 2017, it was perhaps understandable that the Government introduced a skeleton Bill. However, as time moves on, it is essential that we conclude our deliberations within a clearer policy framework before the Bill returns to MPs for further consideration. There are three key reasons for asking the Minister and the Government to accept my amendment today.

First, at its core, this is a no-deal Brexit Bill to deal with a situation which only very few want to see happen, and the other place has already indicated its clear intent that it must not happen. MPs from all parties are urging the Prime Minister to take action to rule out such a catastrophic outcome, as indeed your Lordships’ House did in a Motion passed last Monday by an incredible majority of 169. That alone makes it hard to justify the Bill in its current form.

Secondly, when it was first introduced, the Government presented it as a short and uncomplicated Bill dealing with issues related to a possible no-deal scenario; indeed, the Minister described it as pragmatic and technical. We were informed that the substantive issues about how the Government would deal with new international trade agreements once the UK is in a position to do so independently of the EU would be in a second Bill. I am aware that the Government are consulting the Constitution Committee, and that the Prime Minister is consulting the Liaison Committee in the other place, but no further legislation has been introduced. There is not a White Paper or even a Green Paper, and time is running out. It is not unreasonable that before we complete—not continue, but complete—our consideration of this Bill we should have more information about, and proposals on, such an important policy issue.

I have carefully read the report of our Constitution Committee, which refers to this Bill as a “framework measure” which provides the Government with,

“extensive … delegated … powers, to effect new trade policy”.

That committee raised several issues of concern. At the time, the Government justified the loose drafting by claiming a need for flexibility given the uncertainty over the withdrawal agreement. With no second Bill, the time for flexibility is disappearing fast. Decisions have to be made and mechanisms and processes have to be in place.

Thirdly, we should welcome the fact that, in recent months, we have seen a growing public interest in how and on what basis we should negotiate and operate our trade policy in the future. This is partly due to recognition of the misplaced and misleading optimism—to be polite—of Ministers and others, who told us all how easy trade agreements would be. This is not an issue that Ministers can make up as they go along; it needs serious, forensic, evidence-based policy-making. We know that the terms of future trade with the EU remain unclear, and now the true picture of the lack of progress in securing rollover deals to replace those we currently have with non-EU countries through our membership of the EU has been exposed by the Financial Times.

The International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, is on record telling us how easy it would all be. Back in July 2017 he said:

“The free trade agreement we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in … history”.


He then said that all agreements would be ready and in place “one second” after Brexit, with “no disruption of trade”. Not only were those statements irresponsible, they were gravely wrong. Now, the International Trade Secretary says only that he “hopes” they will be in place, and that this depends upon whether other countries are,

“prepared to put the work in”.

Apparently, he has signed a mutual recognition agreement with the Australian High Commission in London to maintain all current relevant aspects of the agreement it has with the EU. But the EU does not have a free trade agreement with Australia.

When this legislation was going through the Commons, we argued that a legally distinct new trade agreement was required. The Government claimed they could simply roll over the existing agreements, but that is clearly not the case. Our country needs a sensible and appropriate scheme for trade, rooted in reality not in fantasy. Trade negotiations are complex and difficult. They require a proper and effective system involving Parliament and the devolved Administrations, in relation both to the negotiated mandate and the final agreements. We should also engage civil society, feeding in the views of consumers, trade unions and companies.

In conclusion, we will be unable to fulfil our obligation of scrutinising the Bill effectively without further information on how the Government intend to provide proper accountability and scrutiny of current and future trade agreements. We need to know how the devolved Administrations will be involved; we need to be assured of the mechanisms for ensuring that our trade policy is compliant with our international obligations; and we need legal commitments that in any future independent trading policy there will be no reduction in, for example, the rights of employees or consumer and environmental standards.

One way in which the Government could do this is by tabling amendments to the Trade Bill in Committee or on Report, but there may be other mechanisms. My amendment does not dictate what they should be but merely states that this House should not receive the Committee’s report on the Bill until both Houses of Parliament receive proposals on the process for making international trade agreements once the UK is in a position to do so independently of the EU. As the Report stage is expected at the end of February and the leave date is 29 March, it is not unreasonable to expect the policy framework by then, with just one month to go.

My amendment is designed to help your Lordships’ House in its deliberations. The Chief Whip is smiling at me, so I hope that is an indication that the Government are inclined to accept it. However, if that smile is misleading and the Government are unable to support us today then, given the seriousness of the issue and my concern for the role of this House in dealing with the legislation, I will seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is now over four months since we had Second Reading on this Bill. That is an unusually long gap, and one that I suspect the whole House thinks has been caused by the unwillingness of the Government to expose themselves to defeats on it. It certainly has not been because your Lordships’ House has been otherwise too busy.

Whatever the reason for the delay, during that time people might reasonably have expected two things to happen. The first is that, in line with the commitments made by the Secretary of State for International Trade in 2017, the Government would have negotiated the rollover of the 40 trade deals that the UK has with the EU. Instead, only one has been signed—as we have heard, of a slightly dubious nature—and very few are due to be signed in the near future. Why is that? According to Dr Fox, it is a combination of factors: some countries are unwilling to do so because they simply do not believe that a no-deal Brexit is going to occur; some are having elections; and some have, in his phrase, “no effective government”.

Privileges and Conduct Committee

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as noble Baroness the Leader of the House said at the start of this debate, I had not intended to intervene, and I strongly support the committee’s report. However, I must publicly dissociate myself from some of the comments made, particularly, I am afraid, by my noble friend—my old friend—Lord McNally. I strongly support the complainant and would not wish her to believe that the sentiment of the House is anything other than to give her support at this time, rather than criticism.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I sense the mood of the House is that we should be drawing the debate to a close. I appreciate that it probably was not easy for the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to make those comments; I think the House is grateful that he did.

As my noble friend Lady Kennedy said, this is not a court of law. We are dealing with an internal disciplinary procedure of your Lordships’ House. I would like to place on record, and I hope the House will concur with me, our thanks and appreciation, to the commissioner for undertaking what has been a long and detailed inquiry, to the sub-committee that first looked at this and said it was appropriate that the committee address the issues—I know from my own work the amount of time and effort they have taken to read the reports and to look at the information—and to the Senior Deputy Speaker. I hope not one iota of anything he said at the Dispatch Box today—which I strongly support—will be retracted.

In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords, raised issues of process. Contrary to his disappointing assertions that they were ignored by the committee, they clearly were not. The House voted by 78 to 101 that the commissioner had failed to comply with paragraph 21 of the Code of Conduct, which requires her to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness, but gave no direction on what should happen next, other than that it should be remitted to the committee and it was for the committee to look at the matter. The committee did, at length and in full, and it has produced a further report, which endorsed our previous recommendation after further and detailed consideration, and which it asks your Lordships’ House to consider and accept today. These issues were re-examined by the committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said that the committee investigated. No, it did not; it was an independent investigation by the commissioner appointed by this House.

I was extremely disappointed by the comments made about the qualifications and experience of the commissioner and I am glad that they have been redressed today. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he considered such criticism of the commissioner appropriate. To criticise her qualifications and experience is not appropriate. I was on her appointment panel, as was the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If people have concerns about those aspects, they should criticise the noble Lord and me, who continue to have full confidence in the commissioner and her work.

The debate of 15 November has been given extensive consideration today, but it went way beyond what many of us considered appropriate or necessary for the matter being discussed. As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, said, Lord Lester was referred to several times during it. Lord Lester has an enviable professional reputation and his work is held in high regard, as was rightly referred to in the debate. However, the complainant, Jasvinder Sanghera, also has an excellent and impressive professional reputation, but that was not acknowledged and it must be today.

I want to reflect on two or three things that have been said in your Lordships’ House today. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws correctly identified the problems of sitting in judgment on friends and colleagues. That is why we have a process of independent, thorough investigation by the commissioner. We have also to consider our role in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who criticised the commissioner’s report, has not only been a personal friend of Lord Lester—we all understand the pressures that brings—but acted as judge and jury on the decision, was a lobbyist for him, wrote newspaper articles putting the case for him and was an advocate for him in this House. There is an issue about process and procedure that has to be questioned: being judge, jury, advocate and lobbyist for an individual who is a friend and a Member of your Lordships’ House does not seem appropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, in a somewhat embarrassing speech, talked about the wrong process. What else was the complainant to do? How else is somebody supposed to make a complaint? If the process is not perfect, are they to stand back and not make a complaint? It is right that people should feel that they can come to your Lordships’ House and make a complaint when appropriate. Comments have been made both today and previously about how women who have been the victims of harassment or abuse should behave. There is no blueprint that says, “If this has happened to you, this is how you must behave”. The commissioner has used a process in her investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to a book being signed affectionately. Women across this House will tell you that such behaviour is not abnormal where people feel uncomfortable after somebody has harassed them or behaved inappropriately towards them but go on to have a professional relationship with them, particularly if it is in public. Others said, “I’ve never heard anything like this before”. Sometimes our friends behave inappropriately. That is exactly why professional investigators are required; it is not a decision just of your Lordships’ House.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the 1999 committee on parliamentary privilege. I said in my intervention on him that the report was on a matter relating to the contempt of Parliament, which is an imprisonable offence. That is why the standard of investigation should be higher than for an internal disciplinary matter.

We came back to the cross-examination or inquisitorial process. The noble Viscount eventually had to admit that he had not read all the transcripts, I think he said. My understanding is that only two Members of your Lordships’ House asked to see the transcripts at all. The transcripts, which members of the committee and I have read, clearly indicate an inquisitorial process by the commissioner to do justice to the evidence and test the information given to her.

EU Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Well, my Lords, another Monday, another Prime Minister’s Statement. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating today’s offering, not that it offers very much. Last week, the noble Baroness referred to these Statements as her “weekly treat”, but I doubt that she or the Prime Minister feel the same way today. How relieved they must be that Parliament is not sitting next Monday—as far as we know.

This is not a Statement from the Prime Minister that gives any assurance or confidence that she knows where this is going or, indeed, where she is going. In last week’s Statement, following a weekend of assurances that MPs would vote on Tuesday, the Prime Minister refused to allow MPs to make a judgment on her deal. Rather than face defeat she pulled the vote, citing her wish to go back to the EU, although none of us was really clear what she was trying to get. Was it a change or a clarification? In the end, it was neither. Yet again, it was about her living in the moment, delaying a difficult decision, averting today’s immediate crisis without any credible plan for tomorrow.

So what is today’s Statement about? The Prime Minister has now been forced, at the very last minute, to indicate when the Commons will be able to vote on her agreement, but despite continued efforts to present the vote as a choice between her deal and no deal it remains the case that MPs will accept neither. What are the alternatives? We know that the Prime Minister does not want a further referendum, but I have to say I do not think she understands that the main reason this idea is now gaining greater currency, including apparently in her own Cabinet, is the failure of her own leadership. Noble Lords will have seen reports that Mrs May’s chief of staff and her de facto deputy have discussed a further referendum as a means of breaking the current impasse.

Her Statement today, briefed out yesterday, to warn against a further public vote, is yet another example of her attempts to manage her own party rather than delivering for the people and businesses of this country. It is hard to know where her support now is. Despite winning a vote of confidence from her MPs, it is clear that if we assume, as I think we must, that the remaining Government members all voted for the Prime Minister in the secret ballot, she now has the support of only around half her Back-Benchers. All the while, some of her Cabinet colleagues—I use the word loosely—are attempting to take control of the Brexit process amid an unseemly jockeying for position in the chaos that now passes for government.

The Prime Minister cannot expect the world to stand still while she holds on to her deal, fearing its rejection by MPs but allowing nothing else to move on or make progress. It is worth recalling Sherlock Holmes, who said—or had it written for him, I should say—that:

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.


So although the Leader of the Commons will make arrangements for the meaningful vote during the week commencing 14 January, that will be almost two months since the publication of the draft text and a mere 10 weeks until Article 50 expires. Surely MPs should have been allowed to eliminate the impossible—which, as noted earlier, are both the Prime Minister’s deal and the no-deal option—because for the past week the country has been paralysed by Mrs May’s reckless time-wasting. As things stand, this will continue now until the middle of January. We have said for months that parliamentarians should have been involved in mandating the negotiations.

The Education Secretary appears to have been convinced, proposing at last week’s Cabinet conference call a series of free votes to flush out which, if any, majorities exist in the Commons. The International Trade Secretary appeared to agree on “The Andrew Marr Show”, stating that he,

“wouldn’t have a huge problem with Parliament as a whole having a say”,

on what the options were. That may well be the only sensible thing we have heard on Brexit from Liam Fox. The Business Secretary added his support to that suggestion today, but still Mrs May stubbornly ploughs on towards the cliff edge. The public and businesses are desperate for certainty. Last week we saw the announcement of 5,000 job losses at Jaguar Land Rover, with our departure from the EU confirmed as part of the reason. As the deadline looms, others will be making investment plans, or not.

The Statement notes that European Council conclusions are legally binding, but this was not the test that the Prime Minister set herself last week. The Prime Minister says negotiations are ongoing. The Commission disagrees. I have a couple of fairly simple and straightforward questions for the noble Baroness. First, given this pressing need for certainty, with the deadline looming, can she confirm whether, in her opinion, any meaningful change, clarification or progress was secured at the summit? Our view is that it is wrong for the Government to try to stumble into the Christmas Recess without putting the matter to a vote and allowing Parliament to move the process forward. I have to say to the noble Baroness that it really feels now that the Prime Minister is deliberately orchestrating a delay to ensure that there is an irresponsible choice between her deal and no deal.

The noble Baroness heard the truncated debate in your Lordships’ House earlier this month—I know she sat through a very large part of it—and the wide support for the no-deal part of the Motion in my name. She will also be at tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting, where apparently there is to be a discussion about spending an extra £2 billion on no-deal planning. Many in your Lordships’ House will consider this a dire use of taxpayers’ money. Would it not be better to cut that Cabinet debate short and use the time to prepare to get a view from MPs before Christmas on what is impossible, so that the time that remains—the sand is dropping out until the end of March—can be used to achieve something that is possible? Is the noble Baroness prepared to relay such a message from this House to the Prime Minister at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow?

[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.

Exiting the European Union

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 10th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, having had an unexpected opportunity to watch the Prime Minister delivering her Statement earlier today, I listened with great care and have also read it through. I was hoping that there would be some greater clarity about the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s intentions. Yet the Statement provides less clarity rather than more. The only reason the Prime Minister has given for denying Members of Parliament in the other place the opportunity to vote on the deal is that,

“it would be rejected by a significant margin”.

So what happens next? The Statement says that the Cabinet will step up preparations for no deal. Yet to date the so-called no-deal preparations are not going too well. The Government are already behind on legislation and statutory instruments. This is not strong or stable government. Despite the chaos unfolding around her, the Prime Minister appears to be in denial and the Statement says that she has “absolutely no doubt” that this is the right deal.

The Prime Minister seems to be saying to Brexit supporters that, unless they support her deal, they could get another referendum and lose and it would be divisive, as if the country is not divided enough already. Does the Prime Minister not realise that? To those who are against Brexit she says that, unless they support her deal, we will crash out with no deal, which would be catastrophic. It appears that the Prime Minister is trying to alarm and frighten Members of Parliament into backing her. That is hardly a great strategy and not a great endorsement for her deal.

I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House understands her responsibilities and duty to this House in answering for the Prime Minister, in such unprecedented circumstances, and I know that she will want to be helpful today. Given that the Cabinet has discussed this issue today, and she has spoken with the Prime Minister, can she give any indication of the timetable of when the meaningful vote will take place in the Commons? My information is that the Prime Minister would only tell Cabinet Ministers—probably because they would leak—that it would have to be before the statutory deadline of 21 January 2019. That is no answer because, if that is the case, the Commons would be unable to conduct any substantial business before such a vote.

This attitude is in danger of deepening the constitutional crisis that we are hurtling towards. Is there likely to be a vote before Christmas? What are the Prime Minister’s intentions at the European Council meeting later this week regarding the Northern Ireland backstop? Is she seeking changes—and if so, what—which would risk opening up other issues, or merely clarification? If it is the latter, why could she not have sought that already without delaying the parliamentary process?

Finally, as the noble Baroness has spoken to the Prime Minister today, does she have confidence in her to be able to squeeze concessions out of the EU 27, given that they consider the matter closed and she says that she will not shift from her red lines, or does she think that is stretching the season of good will just a little too far?

[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.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 10th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it was Harold Wilson who said:

“A week is a long time in politics”.


In the chaos that now passes for government, the Prime Minister will be making a Statement in the next few minutes in which she is expected to pull tomorrow’s votes in the House of Commons on her Brexit deal. Following that, the Leader of the House of Commons will make a further Statement in which she is expected to adjourn the remainder of the Commons debate. Given the gravity of the situation, we offered to adjourn this House for the Prime Minister’s Statement, and to mirror the process in the other place, but the Government Chief Whip has refused.

We may now be debating a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration that could already be dead in the water. If the Prime Minister returns to Parliament with amended agreements then your Lordships’ House will, as provided for in legislation, have a further debate and an opportunity for a further Motion on that deal but if she returns with the same arrangements—albeit unlikely—there is no legislative guarantee of a further debate. However, the Chief Whip has today agreed with me and my noble friend Lady Hayter that whatever the outcome of the further negotiations there will be an opportunity for a debate on a Motion in your Lordships’ House on the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, for this House to express its view. That means that today your Lordships’ House has to continue as planned. Whatever happens in the other place, the Government are pressing the issue tonight on their take-note Motion. Perhaps the Lords Whips’ Office did not get the memo. In those circumstances, the Motion in my name stands, and I therefore plan later today to test the opinion of the House.

This House, your Lordships’ House, takes its responsibilities seriously. In the middle of chaotic and dysfunctional government, we will therefore continue to examine the wider issues of the deal and perhaps offer some advice on the way forward. To assist the House, we will be taking the Prime Minister’s Statement around 5.30 pm today, when some greater clarity may emerge, but that also means that our proceedings on the debate will take slightly longer.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, what the Government are proposing is that while the Prime Minister is addressing the House of Commons withdrawing from the Brexit battlefield, and while the Leader of the House is making a Statement immediately thereafter, suspending debate on this issue, Members of your Lordships’ House—and, most importantly, Members of your Lordships’ House who have worked hard on speeches—are expected to sit in your Lordships’ House listening to those speeches, unable to go out to find out what is happening in the real world. At the end of this process, late in the evening, the Commons having stopped business hours before, Members of your Lordships’ House are expected to vote on Motions whose political reality has completely disappeared.

If the Government Chief Whip wishes to continue with this charade we will continue to make speeches and to vote. The situation may be that we have a Government in name only and that the country is a humiliation across the globe, but there is no need to bring your Lordships’ House into such a charade and such a surreal set of proceedings. Your Lordships’ House should now adjourn the debate.

G20 Summit

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating today’s Statement. Aboard her flight to Buenos Aires, the Prime Minister told waiting reporters that she was off to sell UK trade to world leaders. It is hard to understand what exactly the Prime Minister means by this, considering that we have no idea what our trading status will be after March. The Government’s withdrawal agreement looks set be voted down, a third of the Prime Minister’s own trade envoys oppose her plans for future trading arrangements, and, with the Attorney-General refusing to publish his full legal advice on the backstop, it is fair to say that we are a long way off negotiating any kind of trade policy. Yet we are told that, from Canada to Japan, one by one the Prime Minister sat down with world leaders to set out future trade deals. I hope that the noble Baroness will say a little more about this and detail to the House exactly what the Prime Minister could have discussed in these bilaterals.

We are told that trade at least was not on the cards during the Prime Minister’s bilateral with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. Did she have a frank discussion over the UK’s sale of arms for use in the brutal Yemeni civil war? The UK is not a spectator; as long as we are selling arms to be used in that war we are very much involved. The Prime Minister says in her Statement that one of the reasons for the meeting was,

“to urge an end to the conflict”.

Surely we can do better than that. Crucially, the Prime Minister needs to put an end to the flow of British arms for use in this civil war. It is now time for action. We have a moral obligation to help the people of Yemen. Ahead of the Stockholm talks in the coming days, the Government should do everything possible to bring about a permanent end to the barbaric bombardment of Hudaydah. As an urgent priority, she needs to fully support humanitarian relief to find a route to allow food and medicine to reach the 14 million starving Yemenis. Can the noble Baroness the Leader tell us whether any of these issues were raised by the Prime Minister in her bilateral meeting?

We welcome confirmation that the Prime Minister raised the murder of Jamal Khashoggi with the Crown Prince. During the summit, President Macron told the Crown Prince that international experts must be part of the investigation. Turkey called for a full UN-led investigation into the incident. We are told that the Prime Minister asked for transparency. Can the noble Baroness expand on this and clarify what the Prime Minister’s exact demands are for the Khashoggi investigation?

Prior to the summit, it was well briefed that the Prime Minister would use the trip to engage in a new security partnership as part of her preparations for the UK’s new satellite system that would rival Galileo. That raises several immediate concerns. What will be the cost of creating a new, separate system? Will it be as effective and will we have full access by 2026, as was the plan with Galileo? Despite all the pre-briefing, there is nothing in the Statement. Can the noble Baroness confirm that, given all the pre-briefing, it was discussed at the summit?

On climate change, the Prime Minister told the summit that the UK was determined,

“to lead the way on the serious threat that climate change poses to our planet”,

to quote from the Statement. That is a worthy aim, but it needs more than just words. For example, did the Prime Minister urge President Trump to reconsider his rejection of the Paris agreement in her informal discussions with him?

Aside from the bilateral meetings, after hours of negotiations it emerged on Saturday that the G20 had agreed a joint communiqué that reaffirmed the commitment to a rules-based international order, which I am sure all of us would welcome. However, we need just to scratch the surface of the declaration and we see that the actions of some of the signatories are at odds with the spirit of the agreement. The UK has a responsibility to support and to defend these values of multilateralism, and the Prime Minister must encourage our international partners to do the same.

Against the backdrop of the communiqué, the US and China agreed a trade war truce, which the White House has labelled “a wonderful humanitarian gesture”. However, apparently this “wonderful humanitarian gesture” includes support for the expansion of the death penalty in China for those importing the opiate drug fentanyl to the US. Meanwhile, in the face of Russia’s arrest of Ukrainian soldiers, Kiev has suggested that democratic elections could be suspended. Neither of these is consistent with the principles of a rules-based international order.

The Prime Minister must seek to use any influence the UK has to encourage all countries to genuinely and honestly abide by this agreement in both domestic and international policy. There has to be real value to such summits. For that to be the case, the communiqué cannot be just warm words to be discarded when they are inconvenient.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating the Statement, but am rather disappointed that it contains an omission. We are told that all the leaders had a bit of downtime during their stay in Argentina, during which they demonstrated national character traits. Angela Merkel went to a steak house for a good meal; President Macron went to a bookshop for a meeting with writers and thinkers; and President Modi held a public yoga session in front of several thousand—no doubt somewhat surprised— Argentinian residents. Can the Leader tell us what the Prime Minister did to reflect our current national mood and character?

More seriously, the Statement contains a number of references to Brexit which are rather curious. First, it says that the Prime Minister held discussions on,

“the good deal an orderly exit will be for the global economy”.

How is that compatible with the Government’s own long-term economic analysis, published last week, which showed that even if the Government get free trade agreements with every single country with which they do not currently have one, there will be a reduction in GDP in the UK because there will be a reduction in trade? The inevitable corollary of that is that there will be a reduction in GDP in the rest of the world because there is a reduction in trade.

Secondly, the Prime Minister said:

“Once we leave the EU, we will strike ambitious trade deals”.


Given that the EU has rejected the Government’s proposal for a facilitated customs agreement, how can we strike trade deals on our own while keeping a frictionless border in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister had specific discussions on trade with a number of Heads of State and Government, including that of Japan. In her conversations with the Japanese Prime Minister, did she discuss the commitment given to Nissan some two years ago guaranteeing that it would be no worse off under Brexit? If so, what assurances did she give, or could she give, to Japanese companies in the UK that they would not face additional barriers to trade, particularly those working in the services sector, not least the financial services sector, after Brexit?

Finally, the Prime Minister said that the UK was,

“creating the right environment for tech companies to flourish”,

after Brexit. Why then does the Prime Minister think that, last week, a letter was delivered to 10 Downing St signed by more than 2,300 tech entrepreneurs warning that, under the Government’s plans for Brexit, the industry would be hit by a drastic reduction in market access and difficulty in attracting new talent and investment from outside the UK?

The Prime Minister is living in a fantasy world increasingly at odds with reality. Fortunately, with next week’s votes, reality is about to intrude.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 26th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Well, my Lords, another day, another Statement. I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating today’s Statement.

Exactly 886 days have passed since the EU referendum, and it is more than 600 days since the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council to invoke Article 50. At that point, the clock started ticking. Many of us struggled to understand why, in her Lancaster House speech, the Prime Minister tied her own hands with a series of hard red lines. Having set out what appeared to be a hard Brexit before talks had even begun, the most enthusiastic Brexiteers felt emboldened.

The problem for the Prime Minister is that all too often, rather than taking a clear position, she has sought to please one or other of the many camps in her own party, and her message at home has at times been different in both tone and content from her message to the EU. So, as time went on and with negotiations stalling, Mrs May had to fly to Florence to extend an olive branch to the EU 27. But for many of our EU neighbours their good will had already been tested. After she failed once again to make a breakthrough in Brussels, the Cabinet met at Chequers in July, agreeing a proposal that could not even survive a weekend before the first Brexit Secretary resigned, goading Boris Johnson, the then Foreign Secretary, to follow suit. Despite such high-profile resignations, the Prime Minister insisted that her way was the only way. She was clear: there is no alternative. That has a familiar ring. As ever, she forged on.

I have reflected before that the Prime Minister’s strategy is to live in the moment—to simply get through each week at a time. This has never been as true as it is now. Last week, with a defiant flourish, the Prime Minister presented the political declaration to Parliament, which was a clear admission that the Chequers deal was dead in the water—the deal that she had defended so strongly. Yet again we are told that this is the only proposal on the table—the only show in town. I think I am not alone in failing to understand why the Prime Minister is continuing on this course. She must know that her deal, which is little more than a blind Brexit, cannot possibly win a majority in the other place. As we discussed on Thursday’s Statement, it is pretty much an aspiration without promises or guarantees.

The Prime Minister also knows that no deal would be as disastrous for UK families, communities and businesses, yet she continues to present this flawed, inadequate deal as though it is “my deal or no deal” and seeks to pray in aid EU Presidents Juncker and Tusk. I can understand senior EU figures lending their support to the Prime Minister at this exceptionally precarious time in her premiership. But, despite the Prime Minister’s “carry on regardless” approach, there are other options on the table, including that, as Michel Barnier has always been clear, the EU’s offer can, and will, evolve if the UK changes its red lines. This is in relation not just to the withdrawal agreement but to the terms of the future relationship as well.

We have been very clear that we could accept a deal only if it delivered a permanent UK-EU customs union, a strong, ongoing relationship with the single market and high-level protection for workers, consumers and the environment. Also, it remains obvious that too little consideration was initially given by the Government to the complex issues affecting Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement. That is equally true of Gibraltar, which I first raised in your Lordships’ House just four months after the referendum in 2016; for both, the details have yet to be resolved. So, this deal does not deliver on the key priorities. Indeed, leaked emails describing it as “not a good deal” explain last week’s lacklustre response from the CBI. In fact, the only support the Prime Minister has been able to garner is pretty lukewarm and seems to be more about the fear of a no-deal exit if she cannot get her deal.

There are many, many questions that I could ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I know that she has been inundated with questions in response to recent Statements; it is always hard to answer everything. I therefore want to be very clear and straight to the point with just two questions: does she consider that the deal before us is the very best that is available? And does she consider that the deal before us is better than what we currently have?

If Ministers are unable to honestly answer yes to both these questions, then they have failed all those who voted in the referendum, whichever way they voted.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. We now have the agreement signed and sealed; the time for wishful thinking is over. Given the constraints that she imposed upon herself, I agree with the Prime Minister when she says that she has probably reached the best deal available. Even if she had had a dream team of negotiators, drawn from the Brexiteers normally to be found on the Conservative Privy Council Bench in your Lordships’ House, she could not have achieved the “cake and eat it” deal which so many of them have advocated.

In normal circumstances, we would now concentrate on questioning the Government on what they meant in various particularly vague clauses of the political declaration. We might, for example, probe paragraph 107, which is about space and simply reads:

“The Parties should consider appropriate arrangements for cooperation on space”.


This is not a policy on space; it is a waste of space. We might equally probe paragraphs 73 to 76 on fishing. But the truth is that there is absolutely no point in worrying about the details of the declaration because it is now abundantly clear that it will not be approved by the Commons, and this is despite the time-honoured Whips’ tactic of offering baubles to wavering Conservative MPs. Clearly the offer of a knighthood does not do the trick. I would be extremely worried if I were the noble Lord, Lord Burns; I suspect that his hopes for reducing the size of your Lordships’ House are now in vain.

The Government are promising us an economic assessment of the consequences of the deal later this week. We already have one today from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which estimates that the cost of the deal could be up to £1,100 per person by 2030. I know that some people will pooh-pooh this, as they do all forecasts, but no reputable forecast argues that we will be better off, and I suspect that later in the week the Treasury will confirm that. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House why the Prime Minister repeatedly claims that her deal is good for the economy. It clearly is not.

If the deal is dead, what are the options? There is much discussion among fevered Conservative MPs about plan Bs, but the problem for them is that all these plans have been examined and rejected by the Government because they are either practically or politically unworkable, and they have not become more workable now.

The Prime Minister is right to say in the Statement that voting against the deal would take us “back to square one”, if by that she means that the only realistic alternative to the deal is remaining in the EU. Can the Leader confirm that this is indeed what these words mean?

In her letter to colleagues yesterday, the Prime Minister said that no one should be in any doubt that that there are some who want a second referendum, which she then bizarrely describes as a politician’s vote—Alice in Wonderland in action. Well, too right—they do want a referendum on whether this deal is better than continued EU membership. I suspect that the 59% of people in her own constituency who would now vote remain would like a vote, as would the 56% of the population as a whole who would now vote to remain.

I understand that the Prime Minister is about to embark on a nationwide tour to promote the Brexit deal. Given that she knows that the deal is dead in the Commons, I can only assume that these are in fact her opening shots in a campaign to win popular support in advance of a people’s vote on the deal. We look forward to joining her on the campaign trail.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. In relation to the noble Baroness’s comments on Gibraltar, we have ensured that Gibraltar is covered by the whole of the withdrawal agreement and implementation period. Our position on Gibraltar’s sovereignty has not changed and will not change. The words of the Chief Minister quoted in the Statement were strong. They showed our commitment to Gibraltar during the negotiations, and that will continue.

This deal will deliver an economic partnership with the EU closer than that enjoyed by any other country, and it will ensure an unprecedented security partnership. It is a good deal and, as Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier have all said, it is the best one available.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about Galileo. Of course we have been in discussions with the EU about this, but we could not depend on Galileo for defence and security on the basis of the existing and proposed security restrictions for third countries. We are therefore rapidly advancing the development of a domestic system that will fulfil our defence and security needs and support the world-leading British space sector.

The noble Lord also talked about the vote, and of course it will be one of the most significant votes that Parliament has held for many years. However, as the Statement made clear, we do not know what will happen if the deal does not pass. All we do know is that further uncertainty and division would inevitably follow, and I do not believe that any of us wants that for this country.

Brexit: Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 15th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement today, although I have to say that I did not detect any great enthusiasm there. I am grateful for her statement at the beginning about timing. Last night, the usual channels agreed the normal arrangements for a Statement, with Back-Bench contributions for 20 minutes today and a more substantive debate of three or four hours on Tuesday, when noble Lords will have had the opportunity to read and consider the detail of the deal and the documents. However, with such significant developments this morning—four resignations so far from the Government, including the Brexit Secretary—it is clear that there is a crisis at the very heart of government. I am disappointed that the Government would not accede to our request for extra Back-Bench time today—I think that was wrong. However, we welcome a longer four-hour debate next week, when we can consider the deal in greater detail. Given the importance of the issue, and because that debate is instead of time today, will the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that she will lead the response next Tuesday?

As the Government descend further into chaos, one thing has remained consistent: the Prime Minister’s approach of living for the moment—getting through today, and worrying about tomorrow later. That has not served her or the country well. But we should not forget that this situation is not entirely of this Prime Minister’s making. The entire Brexit process has been about the internal politics of the Conservative Party. It cost David Cameron and George Osborne their jobs—although the latter has done fairly well for himself since—and it could be about to cost the Prime Minister hers as well.

Last night, outside Downing Street, the Prime Minister claimed that the withdrawal agreement and the outline political declaration had been agreed by “a collective decision of the Cabinet”, and yet this morning, so far, two Cabinet Members have resigned—I do not know whether there is an update on the figure yet. She has failed to unite her Cabinet again. She has failed to unite her party, with MPs reportedly rushing to submit letters to the chairman of the 1922 Committee. Watching the Statement in the other place, we have seen that she is failing to unite Parliament, where there is seemingly no majority for any course of action, other than opposing no deal.

So let us be clear about what is most important: the Prime Minister is failing the people of our country. Families, communities, businesses and workers will not be able to understand why the Conservative Party is behaving in this way, putting the economic well-being of the country behind petty infighting and personal ambition. As Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said this morning, we need Parliament and the country to come together and find a real alternative to this agreement—a deal that the Prime Minister’s former adviser has labelled a “capitulation”.

Those who have welcomed the deal have either said it is “the best we can get”—faint praise indeed—or, as the CBI made clear, support the very measures that the Brexiteers have opposed: a long-term transition and frictionless trade. The draft agreement and political declaration published last night are exactly what we expected: vague promises of a future trade deal, but no clear road map as to how, or when, this will be achieved.

So, what has our sovereign Parliament been offered? The documents contain no commitment to a permanent customs union, despite the support of business and the trade unions; no detail on our future relationship with the single market, despite the EU being our biggest single trade partner; and no clarity regarding the terms on which the UK will continue to participate in EU agencies and internal security systems.

Your Lordships’ House worked hard to secure a meaningful vote for the other place, but the Government are telling parliamentarians that they must decide between this bad deal or no deal at all. It is a Hobson’s choice—that is, no choice. As many predicted, last night’s Cabinet marathon meeting has become a disappointing sequel to July’s Chequers summit. An agreement that has been toiled over for many months has yet again unravelled overnight.

On social media, I am known as @Lady Basildon. It is not just about my former constituency and my home, it is after a character in an Oscar Wilde play. As I watched the news of resignations unfold, a Wildean phrase came to mind: to lose one Brexit Secretary may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness. We now understand why the Prime Minister was not prepared to allow a vote in Cabinet. She could not because she did not have the support of her colleagues. She must have known how fragile the position was when she made her statement last night.

I have little time for David Davis and Boris Johnson. They failed in Cabinet to convince their colleagues of their so-called vision for Brexit or to come up with any viable alternative. They now stand back and attack the Prime Minister from the sidelines. Dominic Raab has criticised the deal but, again, offers no credible alternative. While many in the Cabinet, including, apparently, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, voiced their concerns about the draft agreement last night, no alternative was offered at the meeting. It remains unclear exactly what Brexiteers want, other than to lead this great country off a cliff edge in a few short months’ time.

The situation will undoubtedly evolve in the coming hours and days. Noble Lords will use the expertise of this House to track developments. We will have our debate on Tuesday, but today, it would be helpful if your Lordships’ House were left in no doubt about the noble Baroness’s position. Does the Leader of the House give the Prime Minister and the draft withdrawal agreement her full support?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I commiserate with the noble Baroness who had to repeat this Statement, because we know that she does not agree with it. It appears that she was one of 10 Cabinet Ministers who expressed severe reservations about the agreement. Will she explain her reservations in her reply? I think that the House would like to know.

There is a lot of real and mock surprise and indignation about the contents of the withdrawal agreement. Yet how could anybody reasonably expect it to be materially different from what has emerged? Once you accept a frictionless border in Northern Ireland, provisions such as those now in the agreement become inevitable. That was recognised by the Government in the agreement they reached with the EU last December and, incidentally, which they have spent the last 10 months denying. They have now reaffirmed that December commitment.

If the outcome on the transitional period and the backstop are predictable, I am genuinely shocked at the outline of the political declaration. In some ways, this is a much more important document because it covers our long-term relationship with the EU, not just the position during the transitional phase. I had expected the document to be layered with fudge, but I could not imagine that it would be so vague and unspecific—a mere seven pages.

It is vastly less detailed than the Chequers agreement, which listed some 68 programmes or bodies by name of which the UK wished to remain a member post Brexit. This document mentions hardly any. I believe that we are to get a somewhat extended version next week but, based on the seven pages we have before us today, it is unlikely to answer any of the difficult issues which remain. Fisheries and the European arrest warrant are but two of the myriad tricky issues that are clearly nowhere near being resolved. I cannot believe that the country would accept this pig-in-a-poke Brexit.

However, it is clear that we are not going to get to the point where these things matter, because the agreement document bears all the hallmarks of Monty Python’s dead parrot. It is bereft of life. In her statement last night, and again this morning, the Prime Minister admitted for the first time that there are three possible outcomes to the Brexit process. We can accept her deal, we can crash out without a deal, or we can remain. The noble Baroness has said many times that remain was not an option. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has probably said it hundreds of times.

October European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first I concur with the comments about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. It is important that we understand exactly what has happened, and also why the truth is having to be so painfully extracted. This obviously has implications for our future relationship, and the Government will have to be clear at some point about what action they will take.

On the substance of the summit, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, although the top lines were already well known following Downing Street’s pre-briefing to the press. I can understand why the Prime Minister may have been informed by her Chief Whip that an advance operation was needed before she rose to her feet in Parliament. However, pre-briefing such a significant Statement, purely for the sake of internal party management, goes totally against the procedures that govern this House.

We understand that this is a difficult week for the Prime Minister, and I am sure that I am not alone in the House in being shocked and appalled by comments from—perhaps wisely—unnamed Conservative MPs. They spoke of the PM having to “bring her own noose” and made obscenely offensive comments about knives and stabbing the Prime Minister. Few of us are impressed with the Prime Minister’s negotiations, but such comments go way beyond what is reasonable or rational. If bullying in Parliament is to be rooted out, it must apply to everyone. As a House, I am sure we are agreed that we totally condemn such comments and if, as has been reported, the names of those responsible are known to others, they must face the consequences of their unacceptable behaviour.

Before turning to Brexit, I welcome the other conclusions relating to migration, internal security and external relations. It is vital that swift progress is made on illegal migration. We saw tension between member states at the June summit, leading to the important acknowledgement that this is a challenge not just for any single EU country but for Europe as a whole.

Those noble Lords who watched the BBC2 programme “Mediterranean with Simon Reeve” last night will have seen one particular interview with a young migrant who had sought refuge in Europe, but got as far as the Med. I think he said he had known no peace since he was five years old, and he had a level of despair and sadness rarely seen in one so young. Until we have left the EU’s institutions, our MEPs and Ministers should continue to offer their expertise and exercise their influence to shape an effective and a compassionate response. [Interruption.] I think that was an echo of the need for compassionate and effective response. I hope the Leader of the House will confirm that the UK Government intend to do just that.

On internal security, we welcome the EU leaders’ condemnation of the cyberattack carried out against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and their calls to increase resilience against such attacks going forward. The conclusions note the need to prevent and respond effectively to radicalisation and terrorism, with full respect to fundamental rights. With the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill now being considered by your Lordships’ House, we all want to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck.

The EU has played a significant role in promoting development in Africa, and it is promising that the conclusions note the importance of maintaining strong levels of co-operation with our African partners. Could the noble Baroness confirm what role, if any, the UK intends to play in the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa and other EU development initiatives post Brexit?

With unseasonal warm weather, and alarming weather reports from across the world, we need to ensure that we are vigilant and robust on tackling climate change. Yet, when the President of the United States asserts that global temperatures could simply “change back again”, we recognise the challenges to ensure we have a fact-based approach to this issue and not allow some to seek refuge in fake news. I welcome the EU’s unequivocal backing of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent special report. I hope that the Government will work closely with EU partners to ensure that December’s COP 24 meeting is a success, and that the Prime Minister will continue to press Mr Trump to reverse his decision on the Paris agreement.

This time last week, following Mr Raab’s unsuccessful trip to Brussels, the Prime Minister sought to reassure her colleagues, and then the country, stating:

“I do not believe that the UK and the EU are far apart”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/18; col. 410.]


When I asked whether the Government were confident that sufficient progress had been made to enable an extraordinary summit next month, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said:

“The Prime Minister is looking to continue negotiations as planned in November”.—[Official Report, 15/10/18; col. 326.]


And yet, although she got the backing of her Cabinet before leaving for Brussels, the President of the European Parliament expressed dismay that the Prime Minister had failed to offer “anything substantially new” on the unresolved issue of the Northern Ireland backstop.

The result? Having scrapped—at the UK Government’s request—their original plans for a detailed discussion on the proposed terms of the future UK-EU relationship, the EU 27 leaders determined that,

“despite intensive negotiations, not enough progress has been achieved”.

Today, we are told by the Prime Minister that there is no need to worry. The line is apparently that 95% of the deal is done, so what is the problem? The Prime Minister may claim that she is calm about the state of the negotiations, but the reports of hastily arranged conference calls with her Cabinet indicate otherwise.

Of course we welcome the news that agreement has been reached on the future status of Gibraltar, that there is now a protocol dealing with the UK’s military presence in Cyprus, and that there is an outline agreement on dispute resolution—although, as we all know, this is dependent on the withdrawal agreement. Nevertheless, we welcome the progress. But we are all too familiar with the problems that remain unresolved.

In an attempt to break the impasse, and recognising the amount of work yet to be undertaken, the Prime Minister seemed to accept the principle of a short extension to the transition period, only to row back at the first sign of trouble from Back-Benchers. Now she talks of “an option to extend” rather than taking the common-sense step of negotiating a permanent customs union. Such an arrangement would avoid the need for the so-called backstop and would then help get that deal over the line.

But at each stage of the negotiations we have found the UK lagging behind the agreed timetable, and the Prime Minister seeking to manage internal party-political divisions. The priority for negotiations has to be the interests of the UK, our citizens and our economy, and time is running out. The Leader of the House said last week that noble Lords,

“do not have to stress … the consciousness of the amount of time we have”,—[Official Report, 15/10/18; col. 326.]

to agree a deal with the EU. But in relation to the border and the backstop, it does have to be stressed. The apparent lack of urgency from the Government should concern us all.

To reassure your Lordships’ House that these matters are in hand, can the noble Baroness confirm when she expects the Cabinet to agree—and this is an agreement which lasts longer than the paper it is printed on—a new position in relation to Northern Ireland? How will that position be communicated to parliamentarians who are concerned about the future status of the Belfast agreement, and the need to ensure that there is no hard border? Could she also confirm whether the UK Government will still seek an extraordinary summit in November, even if it is later than originally planned?

Finally, I return to an issue I have raised on a number of occasions, most recently last week. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her written response since she did not have the answer to hand at the time. But her letter to me, my noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of 18 October does not take us any further. She confirms that the citizens’ rights section of the withdrawal agreement will,

“protect the ability of UK nationals in the EU … to continue their lives broadly as they do today”.

However, my question was specifically about onward movement, which will not now be dealt with in the withdrawal treaty but as part of the future relationship. Could she clarify when the 1 million Brits living in other European countries can expect certainty on their future mobility rights? This is not just about ensuring that our UK citizens do not lose any of the rights that they currently enjoy; it is essential for business planning for those companies that operate across EU borders. They need the certainty that is so sadly lacking on this issue. The Prime Minister referred to the brilliant entrepreneurs and small businesses in her Statement, but it is they that need that certainty. If this forms part of our future relationship will the Government stop blocking the publication of the EU’s proposed political declaration?

I hope that the noble Baroness can respond to these questions, but she needs to understand that time is running out and that the nation remains concerned.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I begin by associating myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the unacceptable use of inflammatory language in the Commons. At this point in our national life, matters are inflammatory enough without use of words such as “knives” and “nooses” about a Prime Minister. I hope that the person who used that terminology is unmasked and suffers the consequences that he or she richly deserves.

Before getting on to Brexit, it is instructive to read how the Government dealt with the two other big issues that faced the summit last week and have faced us subsequently. On the Khashoggi incident, the Government have taken a joint initiative in condemning what has happened and wanting further information with Germany and France—not with President Trump, but Germany and France, our closest allies.

Secondly, when it comes to the question of reining in chemical weapons, the Prime Minister takes credit for the fact that the Foreign Minister has agreed with his French counterpart a new EU sanctions regime. We have had this before. What does the noble Baroness think the future of that sanctions regime and that process of agreeing joint sanctions regimes on such important issues will be after 29 March next year?

We are then told that 95% of the withdrawal agreement and its protocols are now settled. Noble Lords will remember this document produced by the Commission six or seven months ago: the draft withdrawal agreement. The bits in green were agreed. As one flicks through it, one finds page after page of green bits. There were some bits that were not agreed and those have been reduced, but as we know it is not the volume of what has been agreed, but the substance of what has and has not been agreed. The fact that the difficult 5% remains unagreed should give nobody any reassurance that agreement is near.

According to the Prime Minister, four steps are now needed to break the impasse:

“First, we must make the commitment to a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory legally binding”.


Before she uttered that sentence, she said, two paragraphs higher up:

“The EU argue that they cannot give a legally binding commitment to a UK-wide customs arrangement in the Withdrawal Agreement”.


So what powers of persuasion and legislative sleight of hand or ability does the noble Baroness think the Prime Minister will be able to produce to persuade the EU that something it says is legally impossible is actually the basis of an agreement within the next very short time?

The second step is the option to extend the implementation period. The argument then is that you have two options, one of which the EU says is legally impossible and the other an extension. The UK then says that it wishes to be able to make a sovereign choice between those two. So ultimately it will say to the EU, “Thanks very much for agreeing these two things, but actually we’ve decided we’re going to go for X”. Why should it agree to that? Why is it our sovereign choice? This flies in the face of negotiations and common sense.

The third thing is to ensure that both or either of those options are not potentially permanent arrangements. This gets us back to the philosophical discussion we had last week about the meaning of “temporary”. The Prime Minister says that she wants it to be temporary so that the UK does not find itself,

“locked into an alternative, inferior arrangement against our will”.

But the truth is that it is not an inferior arrangement that she is scared of but of being locked into something that a future, non-Tory Government thinks is a superior arrangement and therefore stays in the customs union in perpetuity. She and her colleagues want “temporary” to be defined to mean “before the next general election”, which is a novel definition of the word.

The fourth step, to ensure that Northern Ireland has full continued access to the UK internal market, is not a step at all. It is simply a consequence of steps one and two.

In her conclusion, the Prime Minister talks about the challenges ahead. She says that, whatever it means and whatever will happen, we must not give in,

“to those who want to stop Brexit with a politicians vote”.

What she means by a politicians’ vote is actually a vote by the people to have a say on any deal she reaches. We have this marvellous Alice in Wonderland definition that a vote by the people is a politicians’ vote but a vote by the politicians is a people’s vote even if, as is now the case, she and the Government Front Bench know that the people say they want such a vote. This is the kind of Alice in Wonderland use of language that surely the Prime Minister will not get away with much longer.

However, we can be reassured that, whatever she says about not having a vote on the outcome, she is planning for it. We know that the Government have been conducting war-games about how any referendum on a Brexit deal can be conducted. They are to be congratulated on that. Could the Leader of the House confirm that the starting point for the timetable against which those war-games are being conducted is the 22 weeks required for a referendum to be held, set out in UCL’s Constitution Unit’s recent report on the mechanics of such a referendum, not the 12 months recently suggested in your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan? Could she give an undertaking that the outcome of this planning will be published, just as the various notices have been published against no deal, in the interest of transparency and good government?

The key final point is what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said: what happens next? We do not know how a deal can be struck within the Cabinet, but what is the prospect of a November summit? It is probably very small. But, closer to home, what is the prospect of this House discussing the Trade Bill before Christmas? What has happened to the backlog of all the other Brexit legislation, of which there is no sign? What has happened to the 800 statutory instruments— 200 of which require affirmative resolutions—that this House has to debate and approve in the next four months? Could the Leader of the House give us some indication of the flow of business and timetable that she believes will now follow?

This Statement, like all the previous ones, has enabled the Prime Minister to survive another day, but when she speaks of difficult days ahead she knows that Brussels is the least of her problems. Her problems are in her own party, and this Statement does nothing to make one think she has a clue how to resolve them.

Brexit: Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who spent much of yesterday evening with a sense of intrigue as the Brexit Secretary dashed to Brussels for what we were told was a spontaneous meeting with Michel Barnier. With expectations of an October deal being downplayed in recent weeks, it seemed that there might have been a sudden, and possibly decisive, breakthrough. For a brief, shining moment it seemed that the Prime Minister’s attendance at this week’s European Council summit could amount to a victory parade rather than an interrogation—another opportunity, perhaps, to break out the dance moves. Alas, as those experienced in government will know, last-minute meetings are more likely to be about crisis management than celebration.

I appreciate that in her Statement the Prime Minister says that she wants to,

“set out clearly … the facts as they stand”.

But I am surprised that this Statement is being made at all. First, it is customary for a Prime Minister to report back from a summit but not to give a preview of one. Secondly, if anyone was in the best position to update the Commons on the events of yesterday evening, surely it was the Brexit Secretary—but perhaps the Prime Minister owes Mr Raab, who rescued her from making last week’s Statement. Thirdly, and more importantly, it contradicts the Prime Minister’s words of a little more than two years ago when she said:

“We will not be able to give a running commentary or a blow-by-blow account of the negotiations because we all know that isn’t how they work”.


Perhaps the rules have changed.

Recent progress at the technical level must be welcomed, but, as the Prime Minister’s Statement makes clear, the sticking point remains Northern Ireland and the backstop. Since the backstop was first agreed, we have heard different interpretations from the Government about what they thought it meant when they signed up to it. Too often in this debacle the Prime Minister and Ministers have sought to get past the immediate political crisis of their making without working through the longer-term implications.

The Chequers agreement was published in July. It quickly became clear that a facilitated customs arrangement would not wash with Brussels, yet the Government failed to put forward any alternative proposals. Unsurprisingly, Chequers is not even mentioned in today’s Statement. Despite red lines and protestations, the Prime Minister has had to accept what she calls a temporary customs union. She has done so because it is so clearly in the best interests of the UK and goes some way to address the Northern Ireland issue.

The Government argue that the customs union arrangement can be temporary because we will be transitioning to a new relationship with the EU—but there is nobody in government who can tell us what the new relationship will be. Has the time not come to admit that an ongoing customs union and a strong single market relationship are essential and desirable? Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House today what we are going to be transitioning to? The Statement refers to,

“protecting the integrity of our United Kingdom”,

and to how the Prime Minister wants to,

“look the British people in the eye”.

But if her foremost advisers on Northern Ireland are the DUP as they prop up her Government, she will not be able to fulfil those objectives.

Can the Minister shed any light at all on why the UK Government stepped in to request that the EU 27 did not publish their draft political declaration? It is an important point; they would have published it, but the UK Government requested that they did not. If she cannot explain that today, I hope she will write.

After rebuffing the Prime Minister in Salzburg, the President of the European Council said:

“In October we expect maximum progress and results in the Brexit talks. Then we will decide whether conditions are there to call an extraordinary summit in November to finalise and formalise the deal”.


When the Prime Minister returns to the summit on Wednesday, does she still expect to deliver an after-dinner speech to EU leaders in the evening? And is there anything she can say at that summit that will last until the end of the following Cabinet meeting? Do the Government believe that the conditions are there for the extraordinary summit in November, or does the Minister agree with the Irish Prime Minister that there is a chance of it slipping even further, possibly to December?

Time is running out—and I do not just mean for the Prime Minister. Time is running out for the Government to get this right in the interests of the country.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, which is sober and sobering. It begins by saying that the Prime Minister wishes to set out clearly the facts as they stand. Unfortunately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, there are virtually no facts in the Statement at all. It is extraordinarily difficult simply by reading or listening to it to have the faintest clue as to what is really going on.

Take, for example, not the immediate cause of the rupture but the longer-term relationship. The Prime Minister says:

“We … have broad agreement on the structure and scope of the framework for our future relationship, with progress on issues like security, transport and services”.


Leaving aside that the “like” covers 80% of the economy, it is clear that there is no agreement on these issues. Indeed, Dominic Raab said last week in relation to them that,

“we continue to make progress … although there is still some way to go”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/18; col. 51.]

In other words, we are nowhere near having an agreement.

I think that answers the noble Baroness’s question as to why the future relationship document did not go to the Commission last week as was expected: not enough of it had been agreed. But how do we know? We do not have the faintest clue. There are no facts or even suggestions from the Government as to how discussions on the future relationship document are progressing.

So we come to the immediate cause of the breakdown: the question of the backstop and its backstops. If we were on a cricket field, we would be inventing new fielding positions, each one more ludicrous than the last—and each one unnecessary if we had a well-run team. As far as the backstop is concerned, the Prime Minister states the obvious concern of the EU that,

“while we are both committed to ensuring that this future relationship is in place by the end of the implementation period, we accept that there is a chance that there may be a gap between the two”.

In other words, the Government do not believe that they can sort this out during the transition period. So is it surprising that the Commission is saying, “Actually, let’s work out what we do in those circumstances”?

That brings us to the backstop to the backstop. The Prime Minister says that there are two problems with this. The first is that the backstop we proposed—I hope that everyone is following this—has not been accepted by the EU because, it says, there is not time to work out the detail of this UK-wide solution in the next few weeks. Well, why is that? Whose proposal is it? Can we not just tell the EU that we know what it is going to be? Are we expecting the EU to tell us how our backstop—not the EU’s backstop—works? The clear implication of the Prime Minister’s Statement is that we are waiting supinely for the EU and not helping it out on our problem and our proposed solution to it.

The next problem is the issue of “temporary”. This is a huge issue because it is an attempt to define the undefinable. All Members of your Lordships’ House know that the word “temporary” is in the same category as “in due course” and “soon” as definable only in the mind of the speaker at the time. No two people using those phrases necessarily have the same thought in their mind—so it is hardly surprising that it is a struggle to define it. But why would you need to define it anyway? The only reason is that there is no trust or good will between the parties.

There are two problems about “temporary”. The first is that a large proportion of the Tory party in the Commons does not trust the Prime Minister that temporary means temporary and thinks that it is being sold down the river. The other is that the EU more generally does not trust the Government and there is no body of good will that would enable it to agree on something such as this without a definition of something that cannot be defined.

So we have a withdrawal agreement on which progress has stalled because an attempt to define the indefinable failed, and the future relationship negotiations clearly have a long way to go. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, this leads us to the question of timing. She asked whether it would be possible to get a deal in December. Earlier today, for the first time, I read the suggestion that a summit was being cooked up for January, because we are so far behind that the chances of getting a deal in December are now deemed to be not all that good—not necessarily that there will be a crash out, but the British Government have not come forward with enough detailed proposals to enable us to get to that point.

Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say, from her experience of negotiations within government, whether there is any discussion of a further summit in January to discuss where we might have got to by then? Indeed, in the Government’s view, what is the latest date by which an agreement not just on withdrawal but on the future relationship would have to be signed and sealed if they are to meet their deadline of 29 March? Can she give us any glimmer of hope that the passage of time might reduce to a manageable level the splits within the Tory party that have made today’s sobering Statement necessary?

Salisbury Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating what is a detailed Statement. The House is grateful for the information that she provided. This was undoubtedly a shocking and deplorable act. I am sure that the House will join me in sending our thoughts to those whose lives are in danger and our deepest condolences to the friends and family of Dawn Sturgess, who tragically died following exposure.

We must also pay tribute to the dedication of the staff at Salisbury District Hospital and their tireless work in responding to this appalling crime. Like the noble Baroness, I also want to praise the resilience of the residents of Salisbury, Amesbury and the surrounding area. They have lived with this from day to day while most of us were able to read about it then move on to something else in our lives. For example, nearly 100 Wiltshire Police officers and staff have sought psychological support following the attack. The chief constable said that the cuts to police increases the pressure on his officers. Given the impact that this has had on the local community, what support, including financial support, have the Government provided to Salisbury and in what form? We should also pay tribute to the extraordinary diligence of and forensic work undertaken by our police and security services to identify those responsible and establish both the identities of the two Russian suspects—who can now be charged—and on whose authority they were acting.

I congratulate the Prime Minister and I welcome the confirmation of a European arrest warrant being obtained and an Interpol red notice being issued shortly. We know from bitter experience that it is futile to seek an extradition warrant from Russia. What will happen to that specific warrant if we leave the European Union either without a deal or having been unable to negotiate the remaining part of the European arrest warrant? The noble Baroness will be aware that there are difficulties with us remaining. I appreciate that a pragmatic, common-sense decision has been taken, rather than an ideological one, but what will happen in future? What would happen to this warrant, had it not been executed and those two people detained, by the time we leave the EU?

Russia’s reticence to allow its citizens to stand trial in the UK is unsurprising. Both suspects have been identified as officers of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU. As referred to by the noble Baroness, the GRU is highly disciplined with a well-established chain of command. This attack was almost certainly approved at a senior level of the Russian state. The use of a nerve agent is a clear breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention and international law; we condemn the attack and its perpetrators in the strongest terms.

Given the findings of the OPCW and Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations, including against its own citizens and former intelligence officers whom it regards as legitimate targets, what action are the Government taking at an international level to ensure that state actors cannot act with impunity? What discussions have there been with the US and European countries about further sanctions against Russia? As we leave the EU, our relationships and partnerships with our European neighbours will undoubtedly change; additional effort from us will be required to maintain them. What action are the Government taking on this issue at both a European and international level? We need to ensure that we maintain those relationships for the future so that action can be taken.

How closely are the Government working with the UN to strengthen the international monitoring and prohibition of chemical weapons? I am sure the noble Baroness recognises that the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. The noble Baroness may be aware from debates in this Chamber that the police and security services have been clear that in protecting our citizens, one of our greatest assets in the community is local knowledge provided by police officers on the ground, yet police officer numbers across the country are falling and police stations are closing. Some £3 billion has been lost from the policing budget over the past eight years and there are 21,000 fewer police officers today than there were eight years ago. What assessment is being made of the impact of falling police numbers on maintaining national security? Is this being kept under review, including with a commitment to any necessary funding? I know that funding for the security services will increase but I am talking particularly about the ability of police officers on the ground to get local intelligence.

On funding, I would like to ask about CBRN training and support. I have asked this question in your Lordships’ House before, having previously been a Minister with responsibility for CBRN. In how many of our public services is training provided, and is funding being provided for the equipment, given the previous cuts?

Finally, I emphasise our gratitude for the work of our public servants and recognise the pressures we have seen on our health service staff, emergency services, the police and the security service in their ongoing work. They are not just dealing with this incident and the fallout from it; they are looking at ongoing threats from many different sources and they need our support, not just our words—and our response to their need for resources.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, which demonstrates what excellent work the police and security services can achieve when working together. They deserve our heartfelt congratulations for identifying the perpetrators of this terrible crime. Sadly, I suspect that identifying the perpetrators will prove to be the easy bit. The question is: what happens next? Central to the Government’s response is issuing a European arrest warrant. I would like to echo the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the future of this vital component of our crime-fighting armoury. The Government’s White Paper on the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union recognised the importance of the European arrest warrant. On maintaining our ability to access the warrant, it says:

“The UK recognises that being a third country creates some challenges for the full operation of the EAW as it stands, particularly in terms of the constitutional barriers in some member states to the extradition of their own nationals. The withdrawal agreement will address this issue as part of the implementation period”.


Could the Leader of the House explain exactly how the Government plan to achieve this, and what progress has been made since the publication of the White Paper?

The Statement also contains two further proposals for EU co-operation. It says:

“We will continue to press for all of the measures agreed so far to be fully implemented, including the creation of a new EU chemical weapons sanctions regime”.


It goes on to say that,

“we will not stop there. We will also push for new EU sanctions regimes against those responsible for cyber-attacks and gross human rights violations”.

But how credible is it for the British Government, at this point, to go into a meeting in Brussels and say, “We actually think it’s crucially important that we have this new sanctions regime. Will you please do it? Oh, and by the way, we are then leaving you to it”? We have just passed legislation to set up our own sanctions and anti-money laundering regimes explicitly because we will not be part of these mechanisms, which the Government are here lauding as crucially important. How will the Government square that circle to make sure that we benefit from common European sanctions?

The response of our European partners to the Salisbury attacks, as the Government have said, has been truly extraordinary. I was in Estonia last week. It is a very small country which abuts Russia. Their Prime Minister, after literally years of delicate negotiations, had arranged to make a cultural visit to Estonian communities in Russia. Immediately after the Salisbury attack took place, he cancelled it. This is a big deal for them, but he did it in support of us. I think the question has to be raised about the extent to which we can expect members of the EU to show that kind of major solidarity, at a time when they feel sad, frustrated and neglected because of our actions in respect of Brexit.

The key question, however, concerning the European arrest warrant or anything else, is: how can we seek effectively to stop such attacks taking place in future? It is not credible to expect that we will get these two characters, whatever their real names are, in front of a British court. Obviously, there are no easy answers but I have two questions for the Leader of the House about specific action. First, is there any scope for the charge of conspiracy to be brought against individuals higher up in the GRU who must have given the orders, if intelligence suggests who those individuals might be?

Secondly, more generally and more likely to be effective—arguably, the most effective of all—is to look at attacking, if we can, those Russian oligarchs whom we know to be cronies of the Russian regime and who have put their money here in London. The Government talk of radically stepped-up activity in this area, but can the Leader of the House tell us what that radical stepping up means, how many unexplained wealth orders have so far been issued and how many she believes the Government could issue in the near future? If we are to be successful in stopping such attacks in future, we have to hit the Russian regime where it hurts: in the pockets of the people who benefit the most from it. This must be a key component of the Government’s strategy. How confident is the Leader of the House that the Government have got a grip on that?

NATO Brussels Summit 2018

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 16th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, but while I appreciate the pressures that the Government are under it has been the norm that we would get early sight of a Statement before it is made. Today, we received it shortly before the Prime Minister started speaking in the other place at 3.24 pm.

If reports of the summit are accurate, this appears to be one of the most divisive summits NATO has had, despite common agreement on a number of key issues. We welcome indications that the NATO alliance is responding positively to changing warfare and future threats. The declaration from the summit concluded that countries can invoke Article 5 on collective defence response for hybrid warfare. That starts to open up what an Article 5 response might look like, ensuring that a wider range of potential options are available. It might not be military. It can also be, for example, diplomatic—perhaps not too dissimilar from what happened following the Skripal attack. This is a crucial issue, which could redefine a NATO Article 5 response. Were there any further discussions about what it might look like in the future, including the process of determining how it would be co-ordinated?

I note that the summit also highlighted the importance of working in tandem with other international organisations, including the UN and the EU. Was there any discussion about the role of both these organisations in co-ordinating an Article 5 response? Was there any discussion about promoting collaboration between NATO and the UN in conflict prevention and peacekeeping in terms of the wider security issues in the NATO alliance area?

As the noble Baroness and others in your Lordships’ House will know, the founding principle of NATO was about guaranteeing security across Europe and the North Atlantic. Bearing this in mind, and events in Salisbury, have the Government held any bilateral discussions with the US, including with President Trump at the summit before he left to meet President Putin, about our response to Russian aggression? The NATO summit declaration rightly condemned the illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea. This was in some doubt beforehand, because of comments made by President Trump. What steps are our Government taking to support the Government of Ukraine?

On NATO spending, I have been reading the statement from the summit, while at the same time looking at comments and tweets from President Trump. My understanding is that nothing has really changed in terms of the 2014 aim for all countries to reach 2% of GDP on defence spending by 2024. This has been quite a slow process, but it is ongoing and there is continual progress. On the UK’s commitment, does the noble Baroness consider it appropriate that the UK now includes spending on military MoD pensions as contributing towards the UK target, when it had not been included under previous Governments? What consideration has been given to the assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies that we have fallen short of meeting that 2%, even with pensions included? As well as the commitment for NATO to spend 2% on defence, what is the current thinking on the Government’s own modernising defence programme? Will that require additional funding over and above that 2%?

The noble Baroness and others may have seen the comments from President Trump on this issue. I do not know whether she has spoken to the Prime Minister yet as to whether the Prime Minister agrees with the description of the meeting as, “two days of mayhem”. It could be that after President Trump’s visit to the UK she has become inured to his extraordinary behaviour. Press reports, and the President’s Twitter account, indicate that the US President did not moderate his claims or his actions as he flew to Brussels, as we saw when he arrived in the UK.

On the issue of defence spending across NATO countries, the Prime Minister’s Statement says:

“This summit included an additional session in response to the challenge posed by President Trump”.


Does the noble Baroness know when that additional session was held? Can she comment on the accuracy of reports that the scheduled meeting on Thursday morning with Georgia and Afghanistan, two crucial issues that she mentioned in the Statement, had to be halted and the two countries asked to leave after President Trump arrived late and insisted on discussing NATO spending there and then, even though it was not on the agenda and had not been scheduled?

President Trump announced that the EU leaders had caved in to his demands, had agreed to meet the 2% target by next January—2019—and that they would then go further and had “upped their commitment”. That is not in the Statement, so is that the understanding of the UK Government, or is it, perhaps, fake news? President Trump also issued what some regarded as an ultimatum, suggesting that without these commitments the US could leave the NATO alliance. The expression was that America would “do its own thing”. That is not borne out by the decision of the US Senate last week, which, showing very strong bipartisanship, voted 97 to 2 in support of NATO.

It seems there is very little that is new from this summit, although the importance of the NATO alliance countries reaffirming shared commitments and values must be recognised, alongside our ongoing shared commitment to meet the challenges of the future. There is much to be gained by our working together, but it is clear that much more needs to be done to maintain and achieve commitments that have already been made.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this NATO summit, despite an extraordinarily long communiqué, was essentially about only one thing: the future relationship of the US, and particularly its President, with Europe. President Trump says many worrying and extraordinary things, but when he describes the EU as one of America’s foes we are clearly in extremely challenging times. His statement is all the more remarkable because NATO faces more external threats—from Russia on the one hand and international terrorism on the other—than for several decades. At least President Trump’s performance in Brussels and subsequently in the UK has succeeded in one respect in which the Government have conspicuously failed—he has brought the country together, albeit in opposition to him and many of the policies he is now promoting. In these circumstances, it is vital that the UK speaks with a clear and firm voice and that it works ever more closely with its European allies.

There is only one reference in the Prime Minister’s Statement to the discussions that she held with President Trump on Russia. It says:

“But as I agreed with President Trump in our discussions last week, we must engage from a position of unity and strength”.


I think many are concerned that there is now no such unity with the US on relations with Russia. As the Prime Minister talks of unity, did she seek and gain an absolute assurance from President Trump that he would indeed continue to support the NATO policy of opposition to the Russian annexation of Crimea? Did she gain any assurances about continuing US presence in the vulnerable Baltic states? More generally, did she gain any assurance that the President continues to see NATO as the best mechanism for addressing the whole range of our shared security challenges?

On every issue on which President Trump has challenged mainstream thinking—climate change, Iran and trade, for example—the UK has found itself on the same side as our EU partners and not with him. We may find after today’s meeting in Helsinki that the same applies to some security issues. So was the Prime Minister able to have discussions with any of our European partners while she was in Brussels about the form of foreign policy and defence relationship which might exist were we to leave the EU? The White Paper on our future relationship with the EU says that we must ensure that,

“there is no drop off in mutual efforts to support European security”,

and that the proposed mechanism for achieving this is to include,

“provisions for discussion between EU27 leaders and the UK Prime Minister”.

Did the Prime Minister discuss what such provisions might look like with the principal military powers in the EU, particularly France? What response did she get?

The Prime Minister’s Statement ranges over a number of areas—for example, Afghanistan and cybersecurity—where it is clear that we can be secure only if we work in the closest co-operation with our allies. A combination of President Trump and Brexit is putting a strain on these relationships. It is vital that the Government, with their new Foreign Secretary, bring greater clarity to our strategic foreign policy priorities. It has been lacking for far too long.

Death of a Member: Lord Carrington

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as the last surviving member of Sir Winston Churchill’s Government, to say that Lord Carrington had a long and distinguished career really understates his longevity, the importance of the positions he held and the respect and affection he commanded. He had a truly remarkable life and career as a genuine public servant, and over 70 years in your Lordships’ House. His was a lifetime that saw enormous social and cultural changes. As we heard from the noble Baroness, when he inherited his title in 1938 he was under 21 and so was unable to take his seat. As he was on active military service, he did not take his seat until after the war, in which, as we have heard, he received a Military Cross that he did not even mention in his biography, later claiming that it was a “rough raffle” and, as the noble Baroness said, “pot luck”.

He made his first major speech in your Lordships’ House in 1946, when he spoke mainly on agriculture with particular reference to the post-war housing crisis, labour shortages and supporting an agricultural training scheme for ex-servicemen. He regularly returned to these issues in debates and Questions. In 1951, Prime Minister Churchill appointed him to his first ministerial post at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. In a later interview on changes in politics and how we communicate, he recalled that in those days before pagers and mobile phones he was out shooting partridges when a man cycled up to him with a message: “Mr Churchill wants to speak to you”. He said, “I thought he’d gone mad. Why would Churchill want to speak to me? I thought I’d better cycle back home, so I did. I rang Downing Street and there he was on the telephone. All he said to me was ‘Would you like to join my shoot?’ I replied ‘Yes, I would’”. His ministerial career had begun.

Among the high offices he held, as outlined by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, were Leader and shadow Leader of your Lordships’ House as well as Defence Secretary and Energy Secretary. In 1979 Margaret Thatcher appointed him as her Foreign Secretary and, with great skill, he chaired the Lancaster House constitutional conference in which all the factions in Rhodesia agreed to a new constitution and free elections, which led to Zimbabwe gaining independence in 1980. Many in your Lordships’ House recall the dignity with which he resigned as Foreign Secretary when Argentina invaded the Falklands, despite the support of the Prime Minister, who considered it a devastating blow and who tried to persuade him to stay. As the noble Baroness said, he considered it a matter of personal honour that he should take personal responsibility. The then shadow Leader of your Lordships’ House, Lord Peart, in paying tribute to Lord Carrington, remarked that it was a sad day for your Lordships’ House and said:

“We hope we shall see him here in the future. He can be sure of a most genuine welcome from all of us, whatever Benches we occupy”.—[Official Report, 5/4/82; col. 1.]


Few Ministers who resign receive such warmth and respect in doing so. His work as NATO Secretary-General only enhanced his reputation for wisdom and diplomatic skills.

In later years, Lord Carrington was not able to attend that often, but he never lost his commitment to the national interest or his interest in national and international issues, as his interviews illustrate. He was a politician and public servant to his core. He had intellect, integrity, experience and great ability. When he spoke in your Lordships’ House in later years his wisdom was valued and welcomed. On behalf of our Benches, I add our condolences to his family and his many friends. I hope that they can take some comfort and pride in his achievements and his legacy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Lord Carrington was, for people of my generation, a somewhat distant figure but someone who one knew embodied the highest values of public life: honour, integrity and a very strong sense of public duty and public service. As we have heard, he had a most remarkable and lengthy period of public and parliamentary service, and he had to cope with those elements of luck and chance which characterise all public life. He was arguably lucky to be moved from the Ministry of Defence to become High Commissioner to Australia just before the Suez crisis, but he was even more unlucky to be Foreign Secretary at the time of the Falklands invasion. Despite having warned of the danger of possible invasion, he took the blame when it happened and resigned. It was a rare case of a ministerial resignation on a matter of principle and an even rarer one in that it enhanced, rather than soured, his reputation. In his memoirs, he set out the principal reason for aspiring to ministerial office:

“It is office which gives the chance to do things, to steer things perhaps very slightly, almost certainly very gradually and, sadly, often most impermanently, towards what a person believes right”.


These seem like old-fashioned sentiments today, but they mark Lord Carrington out as a man of remarkable character and principle. He will be sadly missed by his family and friends, and we send them all our good wishes.

Exiting the EU

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I concur with the noble Baroness’s statements on Salisbury. I thank her for repeating the Statement today. It was Harold Wilson who reportedly remarked:

“A week is a long time in politics”.


How the Prime Minister must wish that were true. We have to picture the scene on Saturday afternoon. Having achieved an agreement at Chequers, the Prime Minister can enjoy the fine weather and the positive mood that was, at that point, sweeping the nation. England have booked their place in the World Cup semi-final; Lewis Hamilton has qualified in pole for the British Grand Prix; and a plucky Kyle Edmund takes the lead, albeit temporarily, at Wimbledon. All is well. This is the high point of Theresa May’s premiership.

Fast forward to Sunday evening, when David Davis informs the Prime Minister that he is now unpersuaded by the Chequers position and is unwilling to play the role of what he calls a “reluctant conscript”. He resigns. Steve Baker follows and, just in case there was any doubt as to the dissatisfaction in the Brexiteer camp, Boris Johnson has also, after getting others to test the water first, taken the apparently principled decision to resign. With just 264 days until we leave the EU, we have a brand new Brexit Secretary and will soon have a new Foreign Secretary.

David Cameron as Prime Minister was so sure that he would get his own way in the referendum that he did not even plan for a leave vote. That was arrogant and irresponsible. Theresa May as Prime Minister, confident that she had a plan, promised the country,

“strong and stable government in the national interest”,

in an unnecessary general election; and we are being asked to believe that the Government are delivering a “smooth and orderly Brexit”, even though no one can agree what this means and nobody believes it. Following the June summit, the President of the European Council issued a last call to the UK, pleading for progress to be made ahead of the October summit. Last Friday— 464 days after the triggering of Article 50—the Cabinet met, debated and apparently reached a decision. For a brief moment in time, the Cabinet was united. There was radio silence from the usual suspects, for a time, and now we have chaos at the heart of government when we most need stability. There are rumours of letters being submitted to the 1922 Committee. One Conservative MP dared to declare: “I think Theresa May’s premiership is over”.

Far from offering answers, this melodrama raises only questions. Luckily for your Lordships, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was at the Cabinet meeting at Chequers. Can she comment on reports that the advice of the Commons Chief Whip was that the Cabinet had to back this facilitated customs arrangement as a so-called compromise, as otherwise MPs would vote to stay in a customs union? Also, after spending the day with Mr Davis and Mr Johnson, did she get any inkling of the dramas that were about to unfold? Was the PM right to be so confident that she had convinced them, brought them with her and won the day?

The Government’s plan is not one that would have been adopted by Labour—not least because it includes no real plan for services, which account for almost 80% of our economy—but with only six weeks of negotiations before the October summit, there is at least a proposal on the table. It is not quite what the Prime Minister presented at Lancaster House or Mansion House, and it will not be clear what the EU 27 make of the offer until a White Paper is published later this week. EU diplomats are displaying a level of discipline that would baffle some in the Cabinet.

Reinforcing the view that this was more about Conservative Party unity than the national interest, the Environment Secretary acknowledged yesterday that the agreed position amounts to a fudge, in part because of party divisions but also due to parliamentary arithmetic. Having tried different versions of Brexit on for size, the Cabinet has now chosen one that is a soft shade of pink. The UK will leave the single market but will continue to maintain a common rulebook for goods; the jurisdiction of the European court will come to an end but UK courts will be bound to have the regard to its future rulings; and the UK will no longer allow free movement but will offer a mobility framework that allows continued travel, study and work in each other’s territories.

While this blurring of the red lines suggests a recognition of the political and economic reality, can the agreement really be said to amount to a substantial evolution in the Government’s thinking? It seems not. Instead of combining elements of two customs plans already rejected by the EU 27, surely a better approach would have been to propose a formal customs union with the EU, a position supported by business organisations and trade unions. While some argue that a UK-EU customs union would prevent us from striking new trade deals, it is worth noting that, while the Cabinet was locked away, the EU announced that it would sign a new agreement with Japan on Wednesday—a reminder that while this Government are consumed by Brexit, the EU just carries on. Could the noble Baroness the Leader of the House confirm whether the UK will seek to be a party to the EU-Japan trade agreement after Brexit, or do the Government really plan to turn their back on all existing agreements after the transition period to pursue participation in the as yet unratified Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Over the weekend it was suggested that the new mobility framework might allow for preferential treatment for EU migrants, and Prime Minister refused to rule that out, but the Leader of the Commons said on the “Daily Politics” that,

“there’ll be no special favours for EU citizens”.

Could the noble Baroness provide clarity on this specific point?

I want to ask about the area that most concerned David Davis, albeit for very different reasons. Paragraph 6.f of the Government’s statement from Chequers asserts that Parliament will have a lock on incorporating future EU laws into the UK legal order, meaning that,

“choosing not to pass the relevant legislation would lead to consequences for market access, security cooperation or the frictionless border”.

Does that mean that each and every individual EU regulation will require the consideration of both Houses? If so, have the Government estimated how much parliamentary time would be required each year? Would that proposal, if accepted by the EU 27, amount to a Swiss-style sector-by-sector agreement whereby, for example, the EU’s failure to implement a measure on car safety could lead to a loss of market access to that sector and therefore the imposition of tariffs? Where would that leave companies such as Jaguar Land Rover, which has already expressed its concerns? How can the Government avoid implementing the Northern Ireland backstop if the EU 27 cannot be sure that the UK will honour its commitments?

Although the Chequers proposal may offer more clarity on the Government’s thinking, it is no more coherent than previous Brexit plans. Whether you voted leave or remain, confidence in the Government’s management of Brexit is at an all-time low. As a result, faith in politics has been seriously undermined. Luckily—for some, maybe—the Cabinet will meet again tomorrow. There will even be a new face or two, or perhaps more by tomorrow, around the Cabinet table. I therefore echo the thoughts and comments of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, in his excellent article in the Times newspaper, where he urged Theresa May to follow the example of Robert Peel by putting the national interest ahead of those of her party. I hope that today the noble Baroness the Leader will be able to answer my questions.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I add my condolences to the family and friends of Dawn Sturgess.

The Statement and the subsequent resignations lay bare the fundamental dilemma at the heart of Brexit. What is most important, access to EU markets and institutions, which is necessary for prosperity and security, or control, which is necessary for real independence of action? The former Foreign Secretary accurately summed up the Government’s approach when he said that it was to have their cake and eat it, and the agreement at Chequers still aims to perpetuate that impossibilist policy.

The Government have tried to avoid saying that they plan to remain a de facto member of a customs union by calling it a “free trade area”, but they have agreed to harmonise our rules with EU rules for trading goods, possibly in perpetuity if they cannot get their preferred long-term solution of the so-called facilitated customs arrangement to work. The Chequers statement is so incomplete on this concept that it is frankly pointless to try to discern how it would work, but I will ask one question. The Government say that the UK will eventually apply UK tariffs to goods intended for the UK and EU tariffs for goods intended for the EU. Do they envisage that the EU will adopt the same system, or have they given that idea up as politically and technologically impossible?

The Government have decided that there will be no attempt to have a common approach to services—some 80% of the economy and more than 40% of our exports. The Chequers statement says that this will mean that we,

“will not have current levels of access to each other’s markets”.

These words mean that there will be fewer service sector jobs in the UK post Brexit. Have the Government made an assessment of how many jobs are likely to be lost and can they give another single example of where any UK Government have previously adopted a policy that knowingly has job losses at its heart? The text refers to setting our own tariffs. When is the earliest that the UK believes it will be in a position to strike independent trade deals, given that this can happen only if the facilitated customs arrangement is in place? What assessment have the Government made about potential gains to be made in jobs under the Trans-Pacific Partnership compared with the jobs that will be lost in the services trade with the EU?

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked some questions about the role of Parliament as envisaged in the Chequers statement. I have one supplementary question: does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree with David Davis, speaking this morning, that the concept of Parliament having a real say on customs matters was more illusory than real? Who are the Government seeking to fool by spinning that illusion?

On the movement of people, the Chequers statement contains but one sentence. It is deeply worrying. It says that EU and UK citizen should be able,

“to travel to each other’s territories”—

on unspecified terms—and EU citizens should be able to “study and work”. The Government clearly envisage major restraints on freedom of movement. Have they made any assessment of the impact of this approach on UK citizens wanting to travel, work and study in the EU, given that we must assume that freedom of movement will be restricted by the EU if we do the same to their citizens coming here?

The Prime Minister was at pains to stress that the Government will step up preparations for no deal. Can they confirm that while the Dutch, for example, have already recruited 800 new customs officers to cope with such an eventuality, the UK do not even plan to begin to do the same until later in the summer? How, therefore, could the customs service be even remotely ready for any no deal scenario next April? Does not the lack of planning to date mean that the bold brave talk of no deal is simply bluster?

Finally, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was present in the room last Friday and, if reports are to be believed, like all other members of the Cabinet expressed her views. As virtually every other Cabinet member has already done so, could she possibly tell the House the gist of her contribution?

We will have a full debate on the Government’s White Paper on 23 July. Who knows what the Government will look like then? Today, however, they are simply a complete shambles.

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 2nd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this was an extraordinary European Council summit. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement.

I think we are all surprised to see so little on Brexit right at the end. Obviously, Brexit is the key issue for the UK. Although it is increasingly apparent that everything in government is now seen through the prism of Brexit, the summit highlighted that it does not occupy the EU 27 in the same way. So I have some sympathy for the Prime Minister. It must be increasingly difficult at such summits, struggling to maintain influence and credibility in Brussels when under such pressure at home. Then, there is luck—or the lack of it. Who could have predicted that the Belgian Prime Minister’s gift of a No. 10 football shirt could possibly present any hazard? At least he is an attacker, not a defender.

The summit was also extraordinary in other ways. We saw the vetoing of an entire set of conclusions, requiring an all-night session to ensure progress on migration. Angela Merkel, who has taken the lead on the migration issue, questioned the very purpose of the EU if it is unable to deal with this. The discussion on security and defence took place against the backdrop of our Government refusing to confirm that the UK will remain a tier 1 military power and the US President confirming a summit with Vladimir Putin in July.

Migration has divided EU member states for years. The conclusions eventually reached on Friday morning stated:

“This is a challenge not only for a single Member State, but for Europe as a whole”.


Although there have been fewer crossings, the recent plight of more than 600 migrants on the rescue ship “Aquarius” highlighted that political judgments need humanity and decency at their core. We agree with Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, that unilateralism and inflammatory rhetoric are not the answer. I hope his message was echoed by the Prime Minister in her contributions to that discussion.

Member states are right to want to step up their efforts in Libya, including increasing support for the Libyan coast guard. But, as your Lordships’ House debated recently, Operation Sophia is falling short of expectations and can only ever be one piece in this complicated puzzle. The UK and the EU must do more to secure a political solution in Libya and to support the development of state institutions to tackle people smuggling at its source. Could the noble Baroness the Leader of the House clarify the Government’s position on the UK’s post-Brexit participation in EU migration agreements with Turkey, Libya and other states? Will the UK’s support in Libya continue to be a part of co-ordinated European efforts?

EU leaders also discussed security and defence. Like many, I was disappointed by the Prime Minister’s almost belligerent attitude. The Prime Minister was criticised for appearing to make threats on security at Lancaster House. Even with the Commission’s strict stance on Galileo, it is disappointing that she has returned to playing hardball. As with migration, co-operation is essential; we are co-dependent in ensuring the security and safety of all our citizens. The Prime Minister noted the imminent arrival of the NATO summit, arguing that we are “leading throughout NATO”. That does not appear to be the view of President Trump, his Defence Secretary, or even the Prime Minister’s own Defence Secretary, whose agitation and campaign for additional funding show no signs of abating.

Elsewhere, we welcome that action will be taken to allow a co-ordinated response to the challenge of disinformation and to enable the improved identification and removal of online content that incites hatred. Discussions on tax avoidance and evasion, and the importance of rules-based international trade, remain as important as ever.

But, on Brexit, the four—just four—paragraphs in the conclusions are a stark reminder of how much work lies ahead in the next few months. They express,

“concern that no substantial progress has yet been achieved”,

on the Irish border, echoing the comments made by the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, that breaking the impasse and fleshing out the details of the proposed backstop solution is the EU’s,

“first, second and third priority”.

They issued a warning, to be heeded by certain Cabinet Ministers, that,

“negotiations can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken so far are respected in full”.

In the absence of the Government’s White Paper, the EU demanded,

“further clarity as well as realistic and workable proposals from the UK”,

highlighting that the fractures at the heart of government are damaging our interests.

Nothing in the conclusions reflects the Prime Minister’s optimism when she arrived in Brussels hailing the significant progress of recent weeks. The reference to Gibraltar will rightly raise concerns, so I hope the Leader can inform your Lordships’ House of how the UK will engage constructively with EU and Spanish counterparts to resolve the situation.

I return to a point I raised previously on the Prime Minister’s Statement back in March. The paragraph in the draft withdrawal agreement on the onward movement rights of UK citizens living in the EU simply disappeared overnight. I was assured in a letter from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House following that debate that this remains a priority for the Government but that it was a matter for negotiation. Yet, the UK-EU joint statement of 19 June suggested that no progress had been made. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this remains a priority for the Government? If so, what does that mean? When will this next be discussed by negotiators? Did the Prime Minister have any informal discussions on this important issue at the summit? Has any progress been made? What discussions have taken place and when? If the noble Baroness does not have the details on that part, I am happy for her to write to me.

Both the Prime Minister and the EU have called for an acceleration of the negotiations, but it is not the first time that attempts have been made to inject a sense of urgency into the talks. It now has to happen. We are running out of time. There appears to be a growing consensus across the EU that it will be the December summit, not the October summit as previously anticipated, that signs off any agreement. That is a problem. Are the Government still aiming for October, not least to give both Houses of Parliament sufficient time to study the details of the deal? The House of Commons Brexit committee warned last week that even without any slippage it might prove difficult to ratify the agreement and pass enabling legislation before the Article 50 window slams shut.

In the absence of an agreed UK position, the EU has made it clear that it is preparing for a no deal outcome. As we have said so often, no deal is the worst possible outcome and would be catastrophic for the UK. I see the Brexit Minister shaking his head. That really does not inspire confidence in anyone in this Chamber. Nevertheless, the EU 27 have reiterated their willingness to come up with an improved offer if the UK reconsiders some of its red lines, for instance over the EU charter and the underpinning of the European arrest warrant.

All eyes will be on Chequers on Friday. With no England match, there will be nothing to distract the Cabinet from fulfilling its responsibilities. This could be the most important Cabinet meeting for a generation and it is time for leadership. We all know that no plan was put forward at this summit because the Prime Minister had sought party and Cabinet unity on an issue when there is none. Is it the case now that the Prime Minister believes that the dangers of not having a detailed plan for Brexit are outweighed by the dangers of losing a Cabinet Minister or two? As the Lord Privy Seal, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will have a seat at that table on Friday. She has an important role, and I hope she will urge Cabinet colleagues to put their differences aside, to open their minds and to agree a position that enables the UK to achieve the deal it needs, rather than the deal that the Brexiteers will let it have.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this is a Statement of two parts. The first relates to the major issues on migration and security, which were rightly at the top of the agenda. The Prime Minister sets out in the Statement the things that we are doing to support the EU efforts to control migration: a further Border Force patrol vessel off Greece—leaving how many, I wonder, left to patrol our own territorial waters—a few policemen helping EU and African countries, and a small contribution to the EU trust fund for Africa. But while the Statement reiterates the UK’s commitment to working together with other member states to counter illegal migration, the Prime Minister is silent on how this will be achieved if we leave the EU. We will obviously not be in the room when the European Council discusses these matters, but which room will we be in? What forum of which the UK is a member does the Prime Minister propose should take these discussions forward post March next year? The same applies to security, where again the Prime Minister says that she wants a new security partnership but has given no indication of what form that might take, other than via our continued membership of NATO bodies.

The statement issued by the European Council naturally covers the issues discussed last Friday in the absence of our Prime Minister: jobs, growth, competitiveness, innovation and digital. On these vital issues for our future prosperity we are already out of the room and having zero input on the development of more-effective EU policies. The Government have no answer to the question of how we might have an input in the future, despite the implications for British jobs and prosperity.

The second half of the Statement is on Brexit—or, rather, the final page of a seven-page Statement is on Brexit, which confirms that the issue was hardly discussed, either when the Prime Minister was present or in her absence. The EU’s statement, four paragraphs of it, on its Friday discussions is terse and crackles with frustration at the lack of progress made in the talks so far.

How had the PM sought to deal with this frustration the previous day? According to her Statement:

“I warned EU leaders that I do not think this Parliament will approve the withdrawal agreement in the autumn unless we have clarity about our future relationship”.


She warned them about a lack of clarity? This is a Government who will have a Cabinet meeting in Chequers purely to get some vestige of clarity among themselves. The EU has been patiently waiting for a British proposal for months. The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU has obviously decided that his position is so embarrassing that he does not even bother to meet Monsieur Barnier, except very occasionally. The Prime Minister would do better to warn the Cabinet of the consequences of lack of clarity in UK policy. It is surely a bit rich even by her standards to blame the EU for a problem which is entirely her own.

The Statement is curious in that it does not mention the issue which the Prime Minister’s spin doctors were claiming last Thursday night to be the main burden of her intervention on Brexit. The Times, for example, led with the headline:

“EU putting lives at risk over Brexit, warns May”.


Did the Prime Minister, as alleged, accuse the Commission of,

“putting obstacles in the way of a new security pact”?

If so, what response did she receive? If she really raised security but failed entirely to mention trade and Northern Ireland, what sort of message does that send to the many British businesses now seriously worried about the prospects for jobs and investment?

There are many questions which one could ask about the Government’s approach to Brexit, but I realise that the Leader of the House will enjoin us to be patient and wait for the White Paper promised for next week, so to ask them is pointless. But, 10 days ago, I said that if there were a World Cup for kicking a can down the road, the Government would win it hands down. This Government are kicking and kicking, not least each other. I suspect that they are likely to continue to do so well after Friday’s Chequers meeting concludes.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the first of the Motions before us today. In addressing it, I will briefly reflect on the role that your Lordships’ House played in consideration of this Bill, and, for the avoidance of any doubt, our approach to today’s business.

Despite attracting perhaps a little more excitement, this is the same procedure that we have for every legislative Bill that comes before your Lordships’ House. I have said before that the process of Brexit cannot be left to those who have no doubt. It is only through consideration and challenge that we get better, if not the best, outcomes for any legislation. This Bill came to us deeply flawed and divisive. Together as a House, we approached it thoughtfully and diligently. We have had some long days and some long nights in Committee and on Report. We are grateful to those Government Ministers across departments who have been willing to engage on some of the less controversial but equally important issues.

Of around 200 amendments passed, 15 did not enjoy the full or initial support of the Government. Of these, one was totally accepted on agencies and another largely accepted, with minor changes, on Northern Ireland. Eight were rejected, although on some of these enhanced protections for EU-derived protections the Government have since made further concessions, or, in the case of sifting, reinstated earlier amendments. Five have been replaced with amendments in lieu. We will consider these today, including the one we are talking about now on the customs union and the publication of primary legislation to enforce environmental protections.

We are grateful to the Government for their consideration and acceptance of so many of the points raised in your Lordships’ House. Even before the Bill returned to the other place, significant changes were made on a range of issues, including removing the power to levy taxes or establish new public authorities by statutory instrument, which is particularly important for the new environmental enforcement body; additional explanatory statements and reports to Parliament; the introduction of sunset clauses on some issues; the prevention of the repeal or amendment of devolution clauses by secondary legislation and significant amendments in your Lordships’ House on devolution provisions; and clearer guidance for courts and tribunals relating to future decisions of the CJEU. Importantly, we have seen the removal of a clause that I had never seen before in legislation; that is, one giving a Minister the ability to amend the Bill via an SI. That has gone.

Despite disappointment at the rejection of some Lords amendments, this legislation is better for the work that we have undertaken. We have not exceeded our defined and limited role, but we have used our remit to provide for greater consideration, further reflection and meaningful changes. As the Leader of the House has said previously, reinforced by Ministers in the other place, there is no legislation that does not benefit from scrutiny in your Lordships’ House.

We understand that in a democracy this can be both an asset and, at times, a source of frustration to government. Canadians describe their second Chamber as a Chamber of sober second thought—a further opportunity to think things through and fine-tune legislation. That makes the outbursts of some pro-Brexit MPs all the more ridiculous. As we discuss these final amendments from the House of Commons, we have seen a fair bit of sabre-rattling from some of the most enthusiastic Brexiteers and supporters. Inaccurate and misleading press headlines such as “Enemies of the People” and “Saboteurs” may add excitement and drama, but they do nothing to improve the quality of debate or journalistic integrity.

We have also heard calls for this House to be abolished, to be replaced with a committee of experts or an elected House. I know that many hold honourable and genuine positions on different kinds of reform, but to base a case for fundamental change to and abolition of the current system on disagreement on a Bill shows poor judgment. In response to proposals for an elected House or House of experts, I suggest that such a House might not be quite so compliant in accepting the primacy of the House of Commons.

Today, our role is very clear. This House does not and should not engage in ping-pong lightly or without thought. The process of ping-pong is not to challenge the elected House, but to provide an opportunity. Where matters are clearly and obviously unresolved in the House of Commons, that is where they should be dealt with. The reported disagreement since Friday between the Government and their own MPs is not one we should seek to intervene in, other than to provide an opportunity for MPs’ consideration, and it can be resolved only by those elected to the House of Commons.

Lords Amendments 1 and 2 on a customs union have been returned to this House with, in effect, just one amendment, changing “customs union” to “customs arrangement”. This is unnecessary, but I understand why the Government have done it. It is because the Government do not yet know, even today, what they want. Currently, they have two work streams: a customs partnership and maximum facilitation. However, when the Dutch Government are advising their manufacturing industry not to buy car components from the UK because our future customs relationship with the EU is unclear, we know that there is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently. As a result of the amendment from your Lordships’ House, the Government are now committed to return to Parliament in just over four months, by the end of October this year, with a Written Statement on what they have done and how they will proceed. I do not now feel that this is an issue that we should return to the other place.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with much of what the noble Baroness has said about the role of your Lordships’ House. The role played by the Lords on this Bill has been completely in line with constitutional precedent. We indeed defeated the Government 15 times, but the Government used the Lords stages of the Bill to introduce more than 150 amendments of their own, including extremely important ones on devolution. That is because they recognised that your Lordships’ House was indeed the place in which the Bill could be improved.

Of the 15 amendments we passed, as the noble Baroness said, the Government have accepted almost half, either in whole or in part. This is not, incidentally, something that one would gather by reading the popular press. The Government have also chosen to use this stage of the Bill to introduce an amendment of their own in an attempt, possibly unsuccessful, to resolve the “meaningful vote” issue. They clearly recognise that the Lords has a vital part to play in improving legislation, even at ping-pong stage, and they are sensibly seeking to do so in this case.

G7: Charlevoix, Quebec

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 11th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Prime Minister on resisting the temptation to issue her Statement on the summit on Twitter.

We agree with the opening remarks in the Statement: it is worth reminding ourselves of the purpose and value of the G7. These seven developed, large modern economies have recognised both self-interest as a group and wider world responsibilities. We have worked together during financial crises and on the sustainable development goals, and we have taken action on debt for the heavily indebted poor countries. There have obviously been criticisms of that time, but these gatherings have been optimistic and have sought to be effective and responsible.

This time, it is fair to say that expectations were pretty low before the summit, but I suspect that the real outcomes—not just those in the communiqué—are more worrying than anyone anticipated. It is increasingly clear that, despite the best efforts of G7 members to seek to manage and engage with President Trump, the US President does not abide by the same rules. It may appear chaotic, but his unpredictability has become very predictable. Even as other G7 leaders and the EU Council President thanked Prime Minister Trudeau and his team for hosting the summit, President Trump tore up the diplomatic rule book to decry the Canadian Prime Minister as being “weak” and “dishonest”. Those now trademark forthright tweets appear to isolate him from the G7 as an effective group and, whatever agreements are reached and whatever compromises are made, it is not certain whether the agreement or acquiescence of the US will last as long as the flight home.

One part of the Prime Minister’s Statement evoked memories of the understatements of Sir Humphrey Appleby and Jim Hacker in “Yes, Prime Minister”—the part where she says:

“This was a difficult summit with, at times, some very candid discussions”.


How well this was illustrated by the marvellous photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel, supported by the other leaders, as she leans forward across a table to a seated President Trump, with his arms folded, looking away from her at something in the distance—he did not want to look at her. You could almost hear that “candid discussion”.

The implication of this summit is that it appears that President Trump does not see himself or the US as part of a global strategy seeking a consensus on key international issues. Indeed, he does not appear to value his association with the UK. The Prime Minister has made much of her special relationship with President Trump, and Ministers have been vocal in their opinion of the necessity of this, particularly in a post-Brexit world. However, when asked about his relationship with the G7, President Trump declared that the level of his relationship was a 10 with “Angela, Emmanuel and Justin”, very pointedly and deliberately ignoring Mrs May and, later, briefing against her. If our Prime Minister has irked the President in some way, it could well be to her personal credit that she has done so, but it does not bode well for our transatlantic special relationship. It also means that our relationship with our European partners is all the more essential.

Even without US endorsement, there are some good and strong outcomes in the communiqué. We appreciate that the G6 has signed up to a progressive, value-based programme that is to be welcomed. It includes the condemnation of Russia’s destabilising behaviour in seeking to undermine democratic systems, its support of the Syrian regime and the attack in Salisbury. Yet, although initially signing up to this, President Trump also called for Russia to again be part of a G8 summit.

We welcome the recognition that ensuring that all citizens benefit from the proceeds of growth is essential for a cohesive modern society to meet the challenges ahead. Given the imposition of the new US tariffs, to which the noble Baroness referred, President Trump’s intentions, if not the accuracy of the assessment, could not have been clearer. The Prime Minister refers to the open, direct discussion, but President Trump did not sound like he was discussing it with anyone. He said:

“We’re like the piggy bank that everyone’s robbing. And that ends”.


He went on:

“If they retaliate…we win that war a thousand times out of a thousand”.


This is clearly a difficult situation. Can the noble Baroness say anything more about the implications for the forthcoming EU summit and what discussions she has already had with our current European partners?

The commitment to a more secure and peaceful world and advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment are important statements but, to be effective, they must jointly be acted on with political will and adequate funding. This was also a key issue at CHOGM earlier this year. I ask the noble Baroness, if she can respond today, how this builds on the CHOGM discussions. Is it consistent with the outcomes from that conference?

The statement on the protection and sustainability of our oceans and coastal communities is clear and far-reaching. Was the impact of the US withdrawing from the Paris agreement properly discussed? The comment at the end of that section of the communiqué is conciliatory to the US, but that US decision has serious implications.

If we are to build a more peaceful and secure world, all countries must abide by international law and their international responsibilities. Yet, in the past few days, the Italian Government have refused to let a rescue ship dock despite it carrying around 600 refugees, including young children, unaccompanied minors and pregnant women. That undermines those international agreements and the sense of shared responsibilities that underpin bodies such as the G7 and the G20. What discussions have the UK had with other EU countries regarding this situation and future implications?

I hope that, when the noble Baroness answers the questions today, she will also turn her attention to the value of the relationship we will have in the future with our EU partners.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is easy to feel some sympathy for the Prime Minister and the other non-US members of the G7 today. It must be extraordinarily frustrating dealing with an American president given to “fits of anger”, to quote President Macron, and they must all share Chancellor Merkel’s view that it was “sobering and a little depressing”. Again, Sir Humphrey would appreciate the understatement in that phrase.

For the Prime Minister and her colleagues, though, it must be particularly depressing because a large part of the case which Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and others make for Brexit rests on the assertion that the UK will receive a warmer welcome from the other English-speaking countries in negotiating favourable free trade arrangements if we free ourselves from the shackles of the EU. America’s supposed commitment to free trade was the key to that argument, as was the closeness of the special relationship which, we were told, would guarantee British leaders easy and preferential access to the White House. President Trump has now demonstrated that he does not believe in the special relationship at all. The Prime Minister does not even feature in the list of leaders with whom he has a good relationship—or, rather, had a good relationship, before he fell out with all of them—and he rejects the principles of free trade. This leaves the justification for leaving the EU to pursue more open markets elsewhere dead in the water. How appropriate that it was World Oceans Day with the Government and the G7 so at sea.

The G7 meeting has rightly been described as a G6 plus one, with the UK aligned with France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan in resisting the arguments of the US. However, only last week our Foreign Secretary was describing our European neighbours as the enemy rather than the allies with whom we are most closely associated and with whom we share interests and such close values. It is hardly surprising that the Prime Minister appeared to play only a marginal role in this summit, while Merkel and Macron stood up to Trump. Is it not the case that we have now marginalised ourselves as a nation and lack any coherent foreign policy whatsoever? The EU will now impose retaliatory measures against the US tariffs on steel and aluminium, but the Prime Minister is urging caution. In the Statement, she says that she wants to avoid tit-for-tat measures, but that is what countermeasures are. Could the Leader of the House, therefore, explain what sort of measures the PM does think appropriate? Could she explain what the Prime Minister hopes to gain by resisting calls from the rest of the EU for a firmer response?

The Prime Minister also said that, as long-standing allies, we do not make progress by ignoring each other’s concerns but by addressing them together. What do those words mean in the context of the attitude of President Trump, and by what means does the Prime Minister propose to do this in practice? Is she really going to start replying to President Trump’s tweets, or is there some sense in her mind about what those words might mean?

The world today is in greater disarray than it has been for decades. Nothing in the Prime Minister’s Statement would give you any sense that that is the case. In these circumstances, you need to embrace your friends in order to rebuff those who do you harm. This weekend has demonstrated that our friends are in Europe, and that we should be standing with them and not planning a walk into the wilderness.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip. It is a very wise and sensible move to have a dinner break during long proceedings—but I am not very hungry yet, and I suspect that other noble Lords might have had a late lunch as well. I appreciate that there is a Motion on the table and I am grateful for his suggestion of a dinner break. I assume that the next group of amendments would take us to around 7.30 pm, which would be a more appropriate time for a break. If he insists on putting this proposition to the House, I would ask noble Lords not to support the Government.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, just said. It is 6.40 pm. It would be unprecedented to break for dinner at this time. I do not suggest that there is anything other than concern for your Lordships’ stomachs in the mind of the Government Chief Whip, but I ask him to reconsider whether he wishes to put this matter to a vote.

Syria

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 16th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I am grateful—along with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the Lord Speaker—for the briefing we were given by Cabinet Office Privy Counsellors today, as well as the offer of a wider detailed background briefing for all Peers.

First, I want to join in the condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Sergeant Matt Tonroe, who was killed in the service of his country. I entirely endorse the Minister’s comments. His family has rightly regarded his highly regarded military service with great pride. They, and he, would always have known how dangerous that service was—but that will not make the pain of their loss any easier. We rely on men and women such as Sergeant Tonroe to keep us safe, and we should never forget how much of a sacrifice they are prepared to make.

The attack on Douma, which has brought so much suffering, was the latest and most serious of a number of chemical weapons attacks since 2013 in Syria. The Syrian conflict is estimated already to have cost more than 400,000 lives, and many more people have been injured, maimed or forced to flee their homes as refugees. This area had already seen intense air and ground assaults when—as we heard from the Minister—on 7 April, reports and images emerged of what now appears to have been corroborated as a horrific chemical attack, leaving hundreds of people affected and around 70 dead. No one can read those reports or see the images of such suffering without being deeply moved. We completely and unreservedly condemn such attacks.

The multilateral action that has followed this attack was clearly one of limited precision targeting, aimed specifically at chemical weapons installations, including storage. It is to the credit of those involved in both the planning and execution of the attack that there are no reported fatalities and that the installations have been destroyed. We welcome the fact that all our personnel arrived home safely. It must be clear that an operation of this kind cannot ever be in retaliation but must be to prevent further such atrocities.

I am grateful to the Government for publishing some of the information that was made available to the Cabinet at its meeting on Thursday. It would be helpful if the Minister could say more about the international legal position, including the advice of the Attorney-General. Clearly, the use of chemical weapons is against all international law and conventions. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on the moral and legal case, but she will also be aware that humanitarian intervention is not universally accepted; indeed, it is disputed by some. What discussions have the Government had with the United Nations on this issue, including prior to the operation? Specifically, are any discussions ongoing?

We are also aware that this conflict remains ongoing—not just with chemical weapons but with conventional weapons as well—bringing enormous suffering with no real end in sight. It is vital that we continue to play a role in humanitarian relief and medical support and care. Will the Minister say more about this in her response? That brings us to the much-needed pressure to renew diplomatic efforts to ensure they are resumed. What discussions are taking place on that? Have the Government made any assessment of the risk of retaliation after these attacks?

A crucial part of this is the role of the OPCW. I understand that the director-general told a meeting of his executive council today that inspectors had not been allowed to visit the sites. According to Sweden’s representative on the council, Syria and Russia told the inspectors that their safety could not be guaranteed. Additionally, I am informed that Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister said that the inspectors would not be allowed to access the site until they produced an appropriate UN permit. What efforts are being made to engage with all parties? It is essential that the OPCW is allowed to continue its work and visit these sites. What discussions are taking place so that it can do that with the full co-operation of both Syria and Russia?

The Minister said that, even if the OPCW team can visit Douma to gather information about that assessment, it cannot attribute responsibility because Russia vetoed in November 2017 an extension of the joint investigatory mechanism set up to do that. Then, last week, as we heard, in the wake of the Douma attack, Russia again vetoed a new UN Security Council resolution to re-establish such a mechanism. What plans do the Government have to engage with other members of the Security Council to ensure that the OPCW has the necessary powers to undertake full investigations?

Finally, I will ask the noble Baroness about parliamentary engagement. We all understand that there will be times when Governments, in an emergency, have to act in the national interest and when there is no opportunity to return to Parliament until after an operation. We also understand that there are times when details cannot be made public—even in your Lordships’ House—and when rapid action is needed. But in the past there were a number of occasions when the Government consulted Parliament and even voted on an issue before military action. Will she say something about why in this case it was deemed impossible to consult Parliament prior to action and possible to return to Parliament for debate only after the operation had been concluded?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches associate ourselves with the Government’s condolences to the family and friends of Sergeant Tonroe.

Last week, the Government and their allies were faced with a painful dilemma. The atrocious attack in Douma was only the latest and most lethal in a series of chemical attacks that have occurred in Syria over the last year. The only credible perpetrator of these attacks is the Assad regime. The stark choice which the Government and their allies faced was either to do nothing or to take some form of military action to signal our abhorrence of the use of chemical weapons. Given the attitude of the Assad regime and its Russian allies, there was, in the short term, no third effective diplomatic avenue open.

To undertake military action the Government needed to ensure that it was legal, effective and proportionate, and did not lead to an escalation of the multidimensional conflicts that beset Syria. The strict targeting of facilities, the extraordinary accuracy of the missiles, the avoidance of civilian casualties, the forewarning of the Russians and the assurance that the military action was a one-off event appear to have met those requirements. Another requirement for the use of military action, however, that was not met was the need to gain the prior approval of Parliament. It would have been possible to recall Parliament last week at very short notice and the Government should have done so. They might have had in mind the precedent of 2013, when the Commons refused to back unspecified military action in response to chemical attacks in Syria, but the hesitancy of the Commons to authorise military action then only strengthens the case for getting its approval now.

However effective the air strikes might have been in degrading Assad’s short-term ability to manufacture chemical weapons, they do not constitute a strategy. Indeed, the Government make no such claim. But the need for a way forward in Syria that goes beyond the brutal suppression of all resistance by the current regime has never been greater. As far as the UK’s role in achieving this is concerned, we can be effective only when working over a sustained period with our allies and the wider international community.

As the Statement makes clear, the Foreign Secretary has today, alongside his French counterpart, briefed the EU Foreign Affairs Council about Syria. This is commendable but, if the Government have their way, in 12 months’ time he would not be in the room. So I repeat a question that I have put before: after 29 March next year, how do the Government foresee being able to have a voice in EU Councils when they discuss Syria and foreign affairs more generally?

As for the US, it is reported that President Macron and Chancellor Merkel are to visit Washington next week. Does this mean that the French and Germans are now speaking for the European allies instead of the E3, of which the UK was a partner, which handled the Iranian nuclear negotiations?

On the prospects of a long-term settlement in Syria, while the Geneva talks appear to be deadlocked, there are more encouraging signs from the discussions convened by Russia in Sochi with the participation of the Iranians and the Turks. What is the Government’s assessment of the potential of these talks and are they in any way associating themselves with them? Will the Government offer their support to those within Syria gathering information about those committing war crimes so that they can eventually be brought to justice before the ICC?

The multi-layered conflicts being played out in Syria—Assad v al-Qaeda, Turkey v Kurds and Iran v Israel—have the potential to cause further horrific suffering and senseless violence beyond that which we have already seen. At the very least, we must ensure that action by the UK does nothing to escalate these conflicts. Last week’s raid appears not to have done so, but the Government must approach any further such interventions with great care and should take action only when they have the support of Parliament.

House of Lords: Allowance

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. This seems a sensible and appropriate approach to an uprating mechanism. As she pointed out, Members of your Lordships’ House have not seen any increase in allowances since 2010. To have an automatic annual increase on the same basis as Members of Parliament seems an entirely fair and appropriate way to proceed. She will understand that issues and anomalies remain that colleagues across the House will seek to address. They have not been addressed today, as she commented. However, the approach to the uprating mechanism is entirely appropriate. On a personal level, I thank the noble Baroness as I have raised this issue for a number of years, and without her personal commitment I do not believe that we would have seen this uprating at all.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Leader on securing this settlement. It is modest but it protects the current level of allowances after years during which they have fallen and provides the basis of a regular uprating in the years to come—and it is closely linked to what happens in the Commons. In the current environment, I simply do not believe that a more generous settlement was politically possible, so it is very much to be welcomed.

In my view this does not mean that we have anything like a satisfactory approach to allowances. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, produced a simple political fix when he introduced the current system, and, while it has met what I am sure were his objectives—namely, a system which survived without inviting much adverse comment—it is by any logical perspective deeply flawed. In the past 10 years, I have seen my allowance in effect doubled—I lived in London when the Strathclyde measure was introduced—and then, when I moved last year to north Yorkshire, halved again. These changes have borne no relation to my participation in the affairs of the House.

Colleagues who have lived outside London for the whole period have seen a real terms fall in their allowances of nearly 20% at a time when London accommodation costs have increased faster than the overall rate of inflation. Personally, I can see no reason why, within a slowly rising funding envelope, we should not move towards a position in which expenses start again to reflect the actual costs incurred by Members who live outside London. I think that would be a much fairer system. However, I realise that there is no consensus in the House to move in such a direction and that the overall funding available to the Lords is likely to remain tightly constrained for the foreseeable future. That being so, I reiterate my thanks to the Leader for securing the increase she has announced today.

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We fully endorse her comments about the extraordinary bravery of police officers both in the attack in France last week and here at home as we commemorated last week. We recognise the bravery and commitment of those who have lost their lives and we will never forget their actions, which are truly heroic. We should also pay tribute to the police officers and members of the other emergency services who never know what danger they may face on any and every day. They and their families live with the knowledge that they always have to be prepared to ensure that we are safe.

I turn to the security issues outlined in the Statement. We welcome the recognition of the necessity for co-operation. Specifically on Russia, we were grateful for such swift and strong support from President Tusk and the EU 27 following the Salisbury attacks. Even in the midst of what are obviously very tough negotiations, our EU partners have not hesitated to offer both solidarity and action, which emphasises our shared values. Action has now followed across the world, with the announcements today of Russian diplomats being expelled from European and North American countries. We look forward to further updates on the detail of future security arrangements, but is the noble Baroness able to provide any information on discussions regarding UK participation in vital schemes such as the European arrest warrant?

The Government have been reluctant in the recent past to take action to protect the British steel industry, so we welcome that the Secretary of State for International Trade has now joined in representations to the US Government against US-imposed tariffs on EU steel. But we have to ask: would he have been able to achieve this on his own, without the support of the other 27 nations? I wonder whether we might now see a conversion by the Secretary of State to the benefits of joint and co-ordinated action by the EU in all our interests. The exemption that has been achieved, while positive, is only temporary. With talks ongoing between the EU and US, I hope the noble Baroness will confirm that the Secretary of State will provide an update through a Statement in the House of Commons in due course.

Turning to Brexit and the discussions on key issues, the noble Baroness will know that we have been calling for an agreement on a time-limited transitional period and we welcome the Government’s recognition of the necessity of this, not least for the British businesses that lacked certainty on their ability to trade with the EU after March next year. But although I understand the noble Baroness’s and the Government’s reluctance to use the word “transition”, labelling it as an “implementation period”, as in the Statement, is pushing it a bit when it then says it is an implementation period to “prepare properly” for the future. Surely an implementation period would be to implement what has been already been agreed, rather than to allow more time for Ministers to plan for the future.

As we heard in the debate this evening, the Government seem yet again to accept being tied into an absolute cut-off date. It seems a little like watching the sand run through an egg-timer and when it gets to the end, that is it. Does the noble Baroness accept that once the principle has been agreed that there is to be a time-limited period, as it now has been, there is a need for a little flexibility beyond having to return to Parliament? Such flexibility has no impact on the effect of the Bill and, as we heard in the last debate, it would be helpful and useful to the Government. I was sorry to hear the Minister, who is in her place at the moment, rejecting building such flexibility into the legislation. The Prime Minister has already discovered the pitfalls of setting firm deadlines when she rushed over to Brussels to announce the phase 1 agreement only to find she had not properly squared off the DUP. A couple more days were needed. Such flexibility would avoid that kind of embarrassment.

The Statement is clear that the issue of the Northern Ireland border remains to be resolved, but it seems that the Statement misses the crucial point. It talks of,

“how our commitments to avoid a hard border … should be turned into a legal text”.

That is part of the issue, but the fundamental point is not about the legal text and the language to be used, but is about the policy agreement, the practicalities of delivering the frictionless border we all want and maintaining our commitment to and operation of the Good Friday agreement. In her Mansion House speech the Prime Minister outlined her vision of a technological border, despite her Brexit Secretary’s previous description of these proposals being as an example of what she called “blue sky thinking”. If the Government insist that it is now just a matter of a legal text, can the noble Baroness tell us how the Government will give practical effect to the commitment that there should be no hard border in Northern Ireland?

I have two final points on clarity. Last week, this House passed two significant amendments on Euratom in the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. This issue was flagged up in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech and is one of vital importance to the country. Can the noble Baroness clarify whether the Government will accept those amendments when they are considered in the Commons, and/or bring back alternatives in the withdrawal Bill?

My final request for clarity is on the position of UK nationals. The noble Baroness is aware that I have raised this numerous times in this House before, including on the previous EU Council Statement from the PM that said that the Government had protected the rights of UK nationals. I raised then that unless the issue of onward movement is addressed the Government will have disadvantaged UK nationals, but will have protected just some of our rights. I ask her to look at two documents. The first is the withdrawal agreement of 28 February. I thought it was clear, if, to me, unwelcome on this point. Article 32 says:

“In respect of United Kingdom nationals and their family members, the rights provided for by this Part shall not include further free movement to the territory of another Member State”.


Then we had the updated document from last week. There is a mystery. Apart from the mystery that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, tried to raise earlier about what had been agreed and what had not, which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was not able to answer, we have Article 31 on the development of law and adaptations of Union acts, but I looked for Article 32 and it has gone. It has disappeared. We move straight to Article 33. Where is Article 32 about the rights of UK nationals when we Brexit? What will happen to them? It has mysteriously disappeared. It is a blank piece of paper. If the noble Baroness can explain the missing article, where it has got to and whether it means the Government have now come to the negotiating table to protect the interests of UK nationals it would be extraordinarily helpful.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I echo her condolences to the families and friends of all those who died in Trèbes, particularly those of Lieutenant-Colonel Beltrame. On security, the Prime Minister is clearly to be congratulated on securing a co-ordinated EU response. To have 18 EU member states expelling Russian diplomats is clearly a major achievement. However, I wondered whether the noble Baroness would agree with the assessment from the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, of why such an agreement is possible. He said:

“Those who weren’t keen on nailing the Russians were brought along by the powerful instinct for consensus that develops over a long summit discussion. It will be much harder to get that amplification of a UK position from outside the EU”.


It really is important to be in the room. Could the Leader say anything about how the Government will seek to replicate that ability to be in a room with other EU leaders when vital matters of our national security are being discussed in future?

More generally on our response to the Russian incident, when we debated this on the Prime Minister’s previous Statement, a number of suggestions were floated by the Government about further action being taken against individuals. Could the noble Baroness tell us what further action the Government now contemplate?

On Brexit, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition about the use of the word “implementation”. It implies that there is something to implement. This is a standstill agreement or transition agreement; it certainly is not a period during which any agreement is being implemented. The process that has led to this agreement has been very instructive on the Secretary of State for DExEU’s negotiating strategy. It seems to follow the following rules. First, make a series of extremely bellicose statements. Secondly, have no meetings whatever with your main interlocutor for three months. Thirdly, wait to see what the Commission’s proposals are, having made no detailed proposals of one’s own. Fourthly, just accept them all: the customs union, the single market, a £40 billion payment and the European Court of Justice having a rule during the transition period. These were all things that the Government were ruling out at the start.

On the most intractable issue of all, the Northern Ireland border, if I were the DUP I would be seriously worried about the UK’s agreed fallback position of a customs union down the Irish Sea. The only alternatives that it has put forward are widely accepted as completely unsustainable and unworkable. The draft agreement applies the EU’s solution—that is, of the border down the Irish Sea—unless and until another system is agreed, yet detail of another system is there none. There is a curious passage in the Prime Minister’s Statement on which I would be grateful for the Leader’s clarification. It reads:

“I have explained that the specific European Commission proposals for that backstop”—


that is, the border down the Irish Sea—

“were unacceptable because they were not in line with the Belfast agreement and threatened the break-up of the UK’s internal market. As such, they were not a fair reflection of the joint report”—

that is, the December report. But they were in the December report. What has changed to make them unacceptable now when they were in the December report which the Government signed? I find that a remarkable statement.

On the agreement, most of it is in green, which is agreed, or in yellow, which is agreed in principle, but probably the biggest section in white, which is not agreed, is on ongoing police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This is a crucial element of the whole deal and of our relationship with the EU. What were the problems that have meant that we have not reached agreement in principle on the policy in that area? We have been able to reach agreement in principle on the policy on virtually everything else.

As for the future, the Government have so far produced no detailed proposals. Can the Leader give us some idea of whether the Government plan to do so at any point and whether Parliament might have an opportunity to discuss them?

The Prime Minister concludes:

“With a year to go, people are coming back together and looking forward”.


Well, they are looking forward, but the emotions which that forward glance fill them with vary. The Prime Minister said that,

“many are … tired of the old arguments and the attempts to refight the referendum over the past year”.

What does the Leader say to the majority of voters, including the majority of Conservative voters, who according to recent polling now believe that they should have a vote on any Brexit deal? How does the mantra of respecting the views of the British people sit with ignoring the views of the British people in respect of approving any final Brexit deal?

Tributes: Lord Richard

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments; we are grateful for the tributes she has paid. As well as Lord Crickhowell, she will understand that we are also mourning our colleague Brenda Dean who died very recently.

In 1997 Lord Richard—Ivor—led the Labour Party in the Lords into government for the first time in 18 years. He had taken over the leadership in 1992, just after we had been defeated in an election that we went into with such high hopes. Noble Lords will understand that it was not an easy time: despite the convincing nature of Labour’s victory in 1997 the future had looked far from certain five years earlier.

Ivor was a man of great intellect and experience—a “wise owl” if ever there was one. He had strong political convictions and as someone said to me earlier, he was a true character. His time in Parliament spanned almost 54 years. He was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 1964 for Barons Court in west London and served for 10 years in the other place, returning to Westminster on the red Benches in 1990. Between his times at Westminster he served in not one but two high-profile international postings; first, as Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations and then as a European commissioner. In the former role, Ivor was at the centre of two of the key issues of the day: the Middle East conflict that still troubles us and the growing movement for independence in what is now Zimbabwe. An early advocate of Britain’s membership of the then Common Market, Ivor found himself briefly dislodged from the Labour Front Bench for defying the Whip on the historic vote to join in 1971: some things change.

We will miss Ivor’s wisdom, expertise and statesmanship as the seemingly never-ending Brexit process moves forward over the coming months and years. In 1997, his tenure as a Cabinet Minister and Leader of your Lordships’ House was inevitably dominated by the new Government’s heavy legislative programme, particularly the proposals for reform of this House. Lords reform remained a passion and an issue close to his heart, so he was the obvious choice to chair the Joint Committee considering the draft Bill at the last major attempt to reform your Lordships’ House, under the coalition Government.

A proud Welshman, he also played a key role in the development of the powers of the National Assembly for Wales, paving the way for the 2011 referendum on the Assembly’s lawmaking powers. Ivor served on more committees of this House than we have time to mention here, most recently on the Select Committee that this House set up to consider some of the most contentious aspects of the Trade Union Bill. I well recall the Monday morning when Ivor arrived at my office in your Lordships’ House, having just been appointed the previous week, with a huge pile of papers under his arm, all marked up, all flagged: he had spent the whole weekend examining in detail the issues before that committee. His contribution to Parliament and to the Lords over many years was huge. He was the last former MP to become Leader of your Lordships’ House—so far.

So today we pay tribute to Ivor, our friend and colleague whom we shall miss enormously. Our thoughts are with his family, particularly his wife, Janet. I hope that our thoughts as we remember him today will be of some comfort to them.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Ivor Richard, as we have heard, had an exceptionally varied and successful career in both domestic and international politics. As MP for Barons Court, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, he gained the battle honours of being sacked from his Front Bench for supporting the Bill taking the UK into the European Community in 1971. After leaving the Commons, he was a forthright UK Permanent Representative at the UN and then a successful commissioner when he succeeded Roy Jenkins at the Commission in Brussels.

On these Benches, he is especially remembered, particularly by my Welsh colleagues, as architect of the Richard commission report, which was commissioned in the early days of the National Assembly for Wales by the coalition Government, of which the Lib Dems were then part. The report looked at the powers and the size of the Assembly, and, somewhat remarkably, proposed changed the voting system to STV—which particularly commended it to my friends. He was a committed devolutionist and a committed Welshman. He helped push the boundaries of thinking on full powers for the National Assembly, which eventually, many years later, have come to fruition.

But the thing which always impressed me most was his presence and his voice. He had a solidity, an authority and a manner of speaking which commanded attention and made me, at least, want to listen very carefully to everything he said. This, in my experience, is a very rare ability and made him a most effective leader of your Lordships’ House. I will certainly miss that voice.

Salisbury Incident

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We are grateful for the information the Government have been able to share with us so far regarding the threat from Russia.

On Monday, I said that this incident had local, national and international ramifications. We are now seeing an escalation on all three of those fronts. The people of Salisbury are dealing with an attempted murder, through a nerve agent, on British soil and in their home town, with total disregard for the lives of British citizens. We welcome that the evidence that the risk to the public was low appears to be correct, and that those members of the public who sought medical attention for poisoning symptoms have been cleared. We again send our best wishes to Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. We also recognise that there are ongoing checks and issues in Salisbury. This was an unacceptable and reprehensible attack, and the response must be robust. We cannot continue with business as usual, and we welcome the measures announced.

The Prime Minister is clear in her Statement, as she said on Monday, too, that we deploy an “engage but beware” strategy when dealing with Russia. Following the high-level diplomatic expulsions, what form do the Government expect that engagement to take in the future? The noble Baroness will be aware of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on Russia, which confirmed that engagement is vital both to de-escalate points of difference and avoid misunderstandings, and to better understand any threat that is faced. She will be aware that President Putin is facing the first round of Russian elections this Sunday, so currently he is obviously focused on his domestic audience. This makes the support of our allies all the more important.

The UK has called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council. Donald Tusk has announced that EU leaders will discuss this issue at their summit next week, and there will be a NATO meeting tomorrow. International co-ordination is key for any action against Russia to be successful, so will the noble Baroness update the House on the preparations for potential UN Security Council resolutions that should be drafted in order to get the widest possible international support?

Will the noble Baroness also update the House on investigations being carried out on other deaths under similar circumstances? While the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal is confronting us today, what efforts are being made by the Government to reassess the deaths of Mr Skripal’s wife Liudmila, who died in 2012, and his elder brother and his son, who died within the past two years?

Sergei and Yulia Skripal were not regarded as facing a high risk and were not living under a witness protection programme. They lived openly under their own names. What assessment has now been undertaken to review the protection currently offered to other Russian citizens who are not currently deemed, or were not previously deemed, to be high risk?

We welcome the Government’s intention to table a Magnitsky amendment to the sanctions Bill to see the UK doing more to challenge gross human rights abuses. We look forward to seeing the detail. The noble Baroness announced plans to look at further legislative powers to support our defences against hostile state action, and we will work constructively with the Government to scrutinise the proposals that are brought forward. On plans for powers at the border, the noble Baroness will understand that there will need to be safeguards to ensure that the power is used properly to protect citizens and is not open to abuse. On all these issues, will the Government work with the Intelligence and Security Committee and all other relevant committees of Parliament to ensure we understand the threat Russia poses and the consequent pressures on our intelligence and security services and how best they are to be supported and resourced to do the job they have to do?

The Prime Minister announced that the Government have commissioned the OPCW independently to verify the Government’s analysis of the nerve agent. Will the noble Baroness provide assurances to the House that the Government will work with the OPCW to strengthen its chemical weapons monitoring system and encourage an investigation, including the inspection of relevant facilities in Russia?

Finally, all this serves to emphasise how essential it is that we work internationally. International co-operation, European co-operation and engagement are the only way to tackle any threats and, indeed, to seek to prevent them.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Like her, I start by paying tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the emergency services, the medical staff and others in Salisbury who are dealing with what is clearly a more complicated business in cleaning up and in dealing with a rather larger number of people who have been affected by this incident than was at first apparent.

The conclusion that this incident represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom is stark and unavoidable. On these Benches, we agree with the Government that, that being so, this act needs to be met with a full and robust response. The challenge is to identify practical and effective measures to constitute that response. The Government have come up with a number. The first proposal is to,

“expel 23 Russian diplomats who have been identified as undeclared intelligence officers”.

If they are indeed undeclared intelligence officers, this seems a fully justified measure.

Secondly, the Government plan to,

“develop proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity”.

While we will obviously wish to scrutinise any such measures very carefully, and for understandable reasons we do not have the details of them yet, we welcome the proposal to introduce the Magnitsky powers. That is something that we have been calling for for some time, so the Government will have our support in getting those powers on to the statute book. Is the noble Baroness able to tell us whether it is intended that those powers will be introduced by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill or whether they will be coming forward in free-standing legislation?

Thirdly, the Government plan to,

“increase checks on private flights, customs and freight”.

On a number of occasions, your Lordships’ House has debated the potentially damaging consequences of the lack of checks on private flights, so this is welcome. The concern is that this is potentially a very big commitment, because there is a very large number of small airports which are currently almost totally unregulated. We look forward to hearing from the Government how they expect to be able to do that effectively and what the manpower and cost implications will be.

The final strand of the Government’s proposals relates to working together internationally. Of course, that is very much to be welcomed. Within that strand, there are two principal international interlocutors, the first being NATO. Given the strength of the Prime Minister’s language, about the incident involving the unlawful use of force by the Russian state, have the Government given any consideration as to whether these events would justify invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty? Finally, it is obviously the case, as the Government have recognised, that the attitude of our EU partners is very important. The Prime Minister has spoken to Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. I believe that earlier today President Tusk proposed adding to the agenda of next week’s European Council an item relating to this incident. Could the noble Baroness tell us whether the Government have yet accepted that invitation?

Salisbury Incident Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and I join her and, I am sure, the whole House, in paying tribute to the dedication and bravery of our emergency services and Armed Forces who are responding to this incident. Our thoughts remain with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey and his family at a stressful and worrying time for them, and we wish him a full recovery. This is a deeply shocking attack which we agree was reckless in its disregard for the lives of UK citizens, as well as a direct attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. We commend members of the public in Salisbury who have assisted the investigation. We have to understand the emotional impact on the residents of Salisbury.

The noble Baroness is right that this investigation must be led by evidence, not by speculation. However, she has now been clear about the facts known so far and the evidence that links this attack to Russia, whether government or rogue. I am grateful for the details of the Government’s follow-up engagement with the Russian embassy in the UK, and I welcome the Minister’s agreement to update Parliament on the Russian ambassador’s response as a matter of urgency after he has responded by tomorrow evening. Can she give the House an assurance that this will be discussed in Cabinet and that the response will be formulated before it is brought to your Lordships’ House? We welcome the assurance that a full range of measures will be brought to your Lordships’ House.

The implications of this attack are international and national but they are also very local. Are the Government confident that members of the public have been given all the information they need to cope with this incident in a timely manner? Have all the relevant authorities responded quickly enough in offering help and advice to people in the area? Following the incident, the Chief Medical Officer told the community in Salisbury that there was a low risk to the public. It was not until a week after the attack, on Sunday 11 March, that possibly affected members of the public were told that, although the risk remained low, there were actions they should take for their own safety. They include washing clothes as normal in a washing machine. However, clothes that cannot be washed are apparently safe to handle but must be covered and sealed inside two plastic bags and safely stored. For other personal items, such as mobile phones, the instructions say that a wipe down with a baby wipe is adequate. At the moment at which reassurance is needed, the information that is reaching the public has been delayed and, at times, contradictory. We are told that staff working in the Zizzi restaurant on the date of the attack were told to destroy any clothes they were wearing and visit their doctor for a health check. Can the noble Baroness tell the House when staff were informed that that should be their course of action? Why were they told to do that when members of the public in the same restaurant and bar were not told at the same time? We also know that the table at which Mr Skripal and his daughter ate has been destroyed. Are the investigators aware of whether any other members of the public sat at the table in the hours immediately afterwards? If so, have they been identified and contacted?

The Public Health England guidance for those who visited either the restaurant or The Mill pub states:

“You do not need to seek advice from a health professional unless you are experiencing symptoms”,


but it does not give any information on the symptoms to look out for. Would they be respiratory symptoms or a skin rash? A little more information might be helpful for members of the public who are concerned and do not know whether they have symptoms.

The former Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, has today said there has been quite a long delay, and his experience led him to state that health chiefs should have set up an emergency health centre and a helpline. The public are entitled to more open, specific information rather than general reassurances. Although the risk remains low, members of the public need to be confident that they have all the information they need and know exactly what they are required to do to be safe. Do the Government have any plans to set up a public helpline as the investigation continues?

The former commander of the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment—the CBRN regiment—which specialised in detecting chemical weapons, has said that it is important to be more open about what the city is facing. Taking a step back and looking further into the future regarding our response to this deeply disturbing attack, he has also raised the point that the CBRN regiment was disbanded in 2011 as part of a cost-cutting defence review. Will the noble Baroness consider whether that decision should be revisited? Can she update the House on what plans the Government have to ensure our Armed Forces are properly resourced and prepared for such attacks?

It is important that the emergency services work together and are fully briefed, trained and equipped. The fire and rescue service is responsible for decontamination. When was the guidance for dealing with CBRN last updated? I could not find anything on the government website since 2012, and issues have changed since then. Can the noble Baroness say whether the funding has kept pace with the threat, and whether it has increased or decreased since 2010? I am happy for her to write to me on those points.

Finally, the sanctions Bill that passed through your Lordships’ House with some amendments is now in the House of Commons, which has the opportunity to support the amendments on the Magnitsky clause. It targets sanctions against individuals who abuse human rights. Will the Government reconsider their opposition to that clause as it may well be appropriate when we are dealing with issues such as these?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in echoing the views of the Prime Minister about the bravery of the emergency services. Like her, our thoughts are also with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, and we wish him a speedy recovery.

Although the emergency services are well rehearsed in dealing with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents, that is primarily aimed at dealing with terrorist attacks, such as happened on the Tube. This is a very different sort of case and I wonder whether the Government will now consider giving revised guidance to first responders who might find themselves, out of the blue, dealing with a case like this, which at first sight is not necessarily a terrorist attack. In this case the effect on the first responder has clearly been very significant.

The Prime Minister says that there are hundreds of detectives working on the case. Given that police numbers are at their lowest for 30 years, could the Minister explain where these hundreds of detectives have come from? Are she and the Government satisfied that in drawing hundreds of detectives from elsewhere, they have not left unacceptable gaps in those parts from which they have come? When my noble friend Lord Paddick, commenting on this incident last week, asked the Home Office Minister about police resourcing, he was told that the police had the numbers “and more” to do the job they have to do. This flies in the face of the National Police Chiefs Council statement in December that the Budget settlement,

“does not fully meet the level of investment that we identified as necessary”.

I know there is not long to go, but can the Minister have a word with her friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest that, when he makes his Statement this week, he reassures the House and the country that he is making available the level of resource required for the police numbers to be there to do the job they are absolutely required to do.

The Statement explains the steps that were taken after Mr Litvinenko’s death to prevent repetition of such an event. It is very tempting to say simply that they have not been very effective in this case. What is slightly more worrying, however, is that there have been suggestions from US intelligence sources and elsewhere that the UK Government have not been particularly rigorous in implementing those measures because of the levels of investment by Russians in London and elsewhere. I hope the Leader of the House can reassure me that that is not the case.

The Statement goes on to talk about international collaboration against Russian expansionism and unsatisfactory behaviour of various sorts via NATO. Yet the kind of sanctions that we are talking about here are nothing to do with NATO. We are not talking about putting up tanks against the Russian border; we are talking about targeted sanctions against individuals and companies. The way we co-ordinate that is through the EU. That is what we have been discussing with the recent Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill: how on earth we manage to have proper co-ordination going forward. It is rather typical of the attitude of this Government that they talk about NATO, which is almost entirely irrelevant to this incident, but fail to mention at all the EU, which is absolutely germane if we are to get a co-ordinated European response.

The Government say that we must now stand ready to take more extensive measures. I am sure they will have the support of the whole House if they come forward with credible measures to respond to this outrage and potential future threats. But we will be looking very carefully to ensure that any such measures are properly resourced and carried forward with a degree of energy and commitment that has not always and obviously been the case in the past.

United Kingdom-European Union Future Economic Partnership

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It seems that the Prime Minister is trying to create an optimistic, upbeat tone to quell the fears of those who are concerned about negotiations, so first I welcome the greater degree of candour from the Prime Minister. While others around her told us how easy it was going to be to leave the EU, she has admitted that it is complex, difficult and uncertain. She was clear that we have to face up to some hard facts, that life is going to be different and that our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now. Her honesty recognised that we will not be allowed to have all the benefits without all the obligations, which is a far cry from Ministers telling us that we would have the exact same benefits. She also admitted that even after we have left the EU we will still be affected by decisions of the ECJ and that to ensure good access to each other’s markets,

“we must accept the need for binding commitments”,

and she accepted the principle of regulatory alignment in some areas. She has also accepted that in these negotiations neither of us can have “exactly what we want”. These statements are welcome in recognising the harsh reality of what has to be achieved with so little time left.

The Prime Minister has regularly stated her red lines—no single market, no customs union and no role for the ECJ—which we have consistently said she was unwise to use as a starting point for negotiations, yet some of those red lines are now looking distinctly pink.

On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister said more about this in her Friday speech than in her Statement today, but it still seems to me, and others, that there is an inherent contradiction at the heart of the Government’s commitment that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland while they remain opposed to any form of customs union. We were relieved to hear the Prime Minister reject the Foreign Secretary’s assertion in his private memo to her that it is not the responsibility of the UK to resolve the Irish border issue. The Prime Minister was absolutely clear on Friday that it is her Government’s responsibility to resolve this issue. She spoke of her personal commitment and said she recognised the anxieties caused by Brexit and the “desire for concrete solutions”. It is not a desire; it is a necessity, and it is fast becoming an urgent one. If the Government really believe that this issue can be resolved without any form of customs union, they need to start telling us how and to do so soon. The Prime Minister remains resolute against a customs union, but she is seeking a customs arrangement or a customs partnership, so we look forward to hearing more details about the “not a customs union” as negotiations continue.

The Prime Minister has also recognised that some of her early red lines have had to fade. We appreciate her acceptance of the necessity to remain in at least some of the EU agencies, even as an associate member. The Prime Minister identified the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency as being critical. We agree with that description. Many of us are bitterly disappointed that given the importance of the European Medicines Agency, the UK is losing it. Have there already been exploratory discussions with the EU on the principle of remaining, in whatever capacity, in these agencies? Are the Government prepared to negotiate similar arrangements for other agencies? Does the Minister accept that this may well mean a continuing role for the ECJ in the UK? Before she answers, it may help if I tell her that at the weekend, when I did a radio debate with Jacob Rees-Mogg, he described this as “perfectly sensible”. The Minister will be aware that we were a member of Euratom before we joined the EU. She will have heard the debate on Euratom last week in your Lordships’ House. We have now had the Prime Minister’s comment that she wants a “close relationship” with Euratom. Can the Minister tell us what that means? The Prime Minister has not gone as far as she has on the agencies, where she wants associate membership, but she talked about a close relationship. This is also a critical agency for the UK.

In the same way that there has been an evidence-based shift on the position regarding the agencies and the role of the ECJ, the Government have to recognise that if they are genuinely serious about the Northern Ireland border, they need to look at it without unrealistic and unnecessary red lines. We are clear that remaining in a customs union is the best way to deliver the frictionless trade the Prime Minister wants. For Northern Ireland, that means no customs duties or checks at the border. It means no checks for transporters, food, animal hygiene and so on. It will resolve the issue.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister says that Brexit is not an end in itself, yet in a further contradiction she has repeated that no deal is better than a bad deal. Surely both statements cannot be true.

Finally, on Saturday morning I was very fortunate to enjoy the company of the political editor of the Sun, Tom Newton Dunn, as he hosted “The Week in Westminster” with two MPs, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Sarah Wollaston, and me. Perhaps that is where the Prime Minister’s biggest achievement was evident because with such divergent views, they both supported the content of the speech. Indeed, Jacob Rees-Mogg admitted that it was “very encouraging for the unity of the Conservative Party”. So much of the Brexit journey has been about internal Conservative Party management. As we have heard, that canny blend of “We’re leaving the EU” with some red lines becoming pink smudges or fudges just might buy the Prime Minister some time. She said that all negotiations are about cherry picking on all sides. Michel Barnier has welcomed her acceptance that negotiations require trade-offs. Perhaps the Prime Minister has finally accepted that negotiations must be less about red lines and more about a pragmatic Brexit.

The noble Baroness knows from our previous discussions that we welcome a pragmatic approach, in the interests of the economy, of jobs, and of maintaining rights and standards. As part of that, I hope she will be able to confirm that she understands that it becomes even more crucial that Parliament has not just a meaningful vote but an ongoing meaningful role.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has set five overarching tests for a successful Brexit. Three are simply vacuous: respecting the referendum, being enduring and being consistent with the kind of country we want to be. Two are more substantive, but both are being actively undermined by the Government’s own Brexit stance.

The first is protecting people’s jobs and security. Has the Prime Minister given any thought to how that sounds to the 300 Ryanair workers at Glasgow Airport as the company closes its international base there, on the basis of Brexit, to the 288 workers at Landis+Gyr in Stockport as it moves its production to Romania, or to the small businesses which have contacted me explaining how leaving the customs union and single market will impose costs on them that will force them out of business? The Statement contains some welcome shafts of realism, none more so than the statement that our access to EU markets will be less than now. Does the noble Baroness the Leader accept that less access means less trade, which in turn means fewer jobs, lower national income and higher prices?

The second substantive test set by the Prime Minister is that Brexit must strengthen,

“our union of nations and our union of people”.

Leaving aside the impasse in discussions with the devolved institutions about the transposition of EU law, how does the noble Baroness think that sounds in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister has come up with absolutely nothing new to reassure people that there will be no customs border between the north and the Republic. Of the options on the table, one simply says that SMEs, which represent 80% of trade, can carry on as if the border did not exist. How could that possibly work if standards diverge or if the UK strikes its own trade deals with different tariffs from those applying in the EU? This is the only example I know of where the Government’s policy is indeed bold and imaginative—but it is hardly credible.

As for the technological solution to the border, does the noble Baroness agree with Pascal Lamy that there is no such thing as a virtual border? Does she agree with the report, much touted by Brexiteers, from Lars Karlsson, which explains on page 11 that, on the highest tech option he can see, an app on a mobile phone of a lorry driver “opens the gate automatically” as the lorry approaches the border—that is, a gate, a physical thing, not a virtual border. Has she read his description of the Norway/Sweden border, the most technologically advanced in the world according to him, where at staffed customs posts most goods traffic is cleared “within 3-9 minutes”? There is no soft border there either.

The Prime Minister refers briefly to our being able, in theory, to negotiate new trade agreements after Brexit. When she rang Donald Trump over the weekend to complain about his plan to slap a punitive tariff on UK steel, did she ask him how that fitted into a comprehensive free trade deal? Did she consider that in fighting any US steel tariff, the EU as a whole was likely to have a bit more clout than the UK on its own?

More generally, the speech sets out a range of areas where the Government plan to follow EU rules but pay for the privilege and lose any say in how they are set. Having associate membership of various EU bodies is better than nothing, but in reality we become rule-takers. On the trade in goods, the PM admits that we will have to follow standards “substantially similar”—that is, as near as makes no difference to identical—to those set by the EU.

The rationale for becoming rule-takers instead of rule-makers is that Parliament retains the right to diverge from the EU rules if it chooses. But the speech demonstrates how in practice it will not dare do so because of the damage it would cause to business and the economy. The Prime Minister wants to exchange the reality of influence for the pretence of sovereignty—and what is worse, she clearly accepts that it is a pretence.

The Government are going through extraordinary contortions of both policy and language to try to replicate as far as possible the existing terms of our EU membership. It all begs the question, “Is it worth it?”—and invites the response, “No”.

Black Rod

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has provided a very rounded picture of our outgoing Black Rod, Lieutenant General David Leakey. Like his predecessors, he brought his considerable military experience to Parliament and, as we have heard, he has used his logistical, management and diplomatic experience and skills to great effect, both in good times, for national celebratory events, and in very difficult times, when his diligent and considerate nature was greatly appreciated.

The role of Black Rod has changed over the years, and David’s time in office was one of significant change, particularly in relation to how Parliament manages the security of the estate and of those who work here. The noble Baroness the Leader was right to highlight his flexibility and professionalism in managing such change.

On a personal note, I was very grateful when David supported my campaign for a commemorative brass plaque to recognise the Westminster Hall lying-in-state of those killed in the R101 airship disaster of 1930. After two years’ of Questions and lobbying, finally, with David’s strong support, we were able to welcome the descendants of those who had died and lain in state to an unveiling service in Westminster Hall, where the new plaque is proudly on display—a missing piece of parliamentary history now recognised. Thank you, David.

One of my favourite stories about David was told to me by my noble friend Lord Collins. When he asked Black Rod whether it was compulsory for Peers’ spouses to wear tiaras at State Openings, he was told very firmly and succinctly, “Yes, of course”. “That’s good”, replied my noble friend Lord Collins, “my husband has just bought one”. David’s response is not recorded—it may have been a rare speechless moment—but no tiara was worn.

From men in tiaras to men in tights: the Leader mentioned that the collective memory of your Lordships’ House has been deeply affected by the sight of David on national television in just his long white shirt, quickly and I have to say rather expertly managing to pull on his ceremonial black tights. One day, feeling quite courageous, I summoned up the nerve to ask him why. How did the crew manage to get him to dress in front of the camera? Somewhat embarrassed, he replied that he had got so used to them following him around that, “I just forgot they were there”.

One of the highlights of the parliamentary calendar has to be the State Opening of Parliament, when TVs around the world show that slow parade from your Lordships’ House to the other end of the building, so that Black Rod can summon Members of the elected House to hear the Queen’s Speech. As 2017 brought an unexpected election, the Queen’s Speech unfortunately clashed with a previous commitment in the royal calendar—Ascot. In a full House of Commons, with such formal ceremony, it was a delight to watch David struggle to keep a straight face as Dennis Skinner quipped, “Get your skates on. First race is half past two”.

The Leader paid tribute to and thanked the Yeoman Usher, Brigadier Neil Baverstock, for stepping up as the acting Black Rod following David’s departure. On behalf of these Benches, I add our appreciation and thanks. Neil has served as Yeoman Usher in good and in difficult times, and his calmness under pressure alongside an easy, yet highly efficient manner has been greatly and warmly appreciated.

And now we move into a new era with our new Lady Usher of the Black Rod, Sarah Clarke. When Sarah first saw the newspaper advert, she knew that that she would have to demonstrate that her experience would enable her to fulfil the responsibilities of this position. Following her interviews, we were absolutely confident that she has the skills, the understanding and the personality to take on this role. Who knows, her Wimbledon experience could be very useful during any parliamentary ping-pong—although some things take more time. We warmly welcome her and look forward to working with her, although she may not appreciate the ping-pong joke.

The last word has to be for David Leakey. We wish him and Shelagh a long and enjoyable retirement.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I too welcome Sarah Clarke very warmly to the House. I and my colleagues look forward very much to working with her. I also express our thanks to Neil Baverstock for serving as acting Black Rod in the intervening weeks since David Leakey’s retirement. We are extremely grateful to him for filling this role with his customary professionalism.

David Leakey had an extremely distinguished career in the Army before he became Black Rod. One of his military roles was particularly useful preparation: from 2004 to 2007 he was commander of the European Union’s peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina. His civilian opposite number was my colleague and noble friend Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, then the EU’s high representative. I doubt whether they saw their regular dealings in Bosnia as training for their eventual roles here, but in any event it clearly stood Black Rod, at least, in good stead. Being a professional peacekeeper would, I am sure, have proved extremely useful training because, in addition to the ceremonial roles played by Black Rod, sorting out disputes between Members of your Lordships’ House has traditionally been an important element in his work. I know from my own period as Chief Whip on these Benches that there were times when Black Rod had to deal with disputes between Peers, sometimes of an essentially trivial nature but of great importance to the Peers concerned. He did it with calm authority and due seriousness.

It takes much meticulous planning to ensure that the great ceremonial and state occasions referred to by the Leader of the House run smoothly and without a hitch. David approached all of these with great skill and care and ensured that they were all flawlessly executed time after time. We are all deeply grateful to David for his dedication to public service and this House. We on these Benches wish him and his wife extremely well in his retirement.

Working Group on Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 8th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, and certainly welcome the general point she made at the beginning of her remarks about the intimidation and aggression shown towards anyone who seeks to become involved in public life and expresses a view that someone else does not like. People who involve themselves in public life should be celebrated, not denigrated.

I said in response to the repeat of the Urgent Question last year that this is a human and workplace issue. It cuts across parties and clearly the actions have to cut across the parties as well. We have a duty to address any issues robustly and find mechanisms for advice, making complaints, seeking support and taking action. We are all agreed that the workplace should be somewhere where every individual feels that they can give their best and no staff member or colleague should ever have to cope with or try to manage inappropriate behaviour. Further, no one should be frightened to speak up or make a complaint to do with any form of harassment, bullying or sexual intimidation.

I thank the committee for its work but I place on record because it is worth noting that, even during the time that this committee was working, leaks that were usually inaccurate were made to the press from the committee in an attempt to undermine its members. I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had no responsibility for this—she was quite clear on that—but that one member of the committee should be targeted in national newspapers when everyone was trying to grapple with the problems and deal with them was something I found unacceptable. This was difficult and challenging to get right so I acknowledge, recognise and thank the committee for the care and commitment it and the staff who served it in its work showed in putting in place procedures and safeguards to deal with bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment at Westminster. It is an important first step, and we welcome the report.

At the outset, we called for the immediate establishment of an independent specialist adviser on sexual harassment and, although we would have preferred that to be done immediately, we welcome the fact that it is acknowledged in the report. We hope that the adviser will be put in place as soon as practicably possible. As the noble Baroness said, the scheme is to be underpinned by an advice service for MPs’ and Peers’ staff. I recognise that most Members of your Lordships’ House do not have staff but obviously, even if the numbers are far lower, the same principles and expectations of behaviour still apply. Can the noble Baroness confirm that as well as advice for the staff of MPs and Peers, advice on HR issues will be available for MPs and Peers themselves? That could help to avoid inadvertent mistakes or misunderstandings. I welcome her acknowledgement of the need for a comprehensive culture change, and providing advice for all Members could be very helpful in that.

This new scheme has been no small undertaking. As the noble Baroness said, it will cover approximately 15,000 people working across the Parliamentary Estate and it is hoped that in addition it will form part of any contracts let for the building programmes. I think what I am looking for is an assurance that it will involve anybody who is employed by anybody on the Parliamentary Estate because a number of workers are not employed by Parliament but by contractors, whether they are cleaning, catering or building staff. I hope that they will be included and thus will be able to have the same expectations of behaviour.

I will ask a couple of questions. One is on the possible sanctions. Understandably there is a lack of clarity in the report and more work to be done, but my question concerns what sanctions apply in what circumstances. Inappropriate behaviour of any kind ranges from the relatively mild to the very serious. I hope that the commission has been involved in this. Was there any discussion with the commissioner prior to the report coming forward on how the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges as well as the House of Lords Commission could be involved in this?

I will also ask something about the role of the commissioner. I appreciate that this is a Commons Statement and any references in it probably refer to the Commons commissioner, but it says that the commissioner’s role, which I took to be that of the Lords commissioner as well, would be “expanded and reformed”. Has what form that will take been discussed with the commissioner? Will resources be made available for that and will the time of the commissioner be made available? I am concerned about any delays. Having spoken to colleagues who have had issues considered by the commissioner in the past, I know that they can take a long time to resolve. If we are expecting more from the commissioner we should make sure that the resources are there for that work to be undertaken.

I also raise trade unions; I have raised this before. There should be trade union recognition by Parliament. I may have missed it in the report and I apologise if it is in there—I have not had time to read every word in detail. There has to be the opportunity for staff to raise concerns and grievances collectively, not just as individuals. I know that there have been some issues around the anonymity clause in here—that if somebody is reported for bad behaviour they should remain anonymous. It is worth emphasising that in the environment we work in, where there might be one or two people working to an individual MP or Peer, to identify the person being complained about often identifies the person complaining as well. I would be very concerned if that was a barrier to somebody bringing forward complaints. In this instance it is entirely justified.

I am grateful that the noble Baroness acknowledges that this is not the end of the process. There are timescales for the various work streams because there is still a large body of work to be undertaken. Could I have an assurance that this work will be undertaken speedily to try to put in place these recommendations? Having the recommendation is all well and good, but we need action. I hope a progress report can be made.

As I have raised before, I am still concerned about how the mandatory training of Members will be enforced and what sanctions there will be if that training does not take place, but it is right that training is available for Members of your Lordships’ House and to our staff on issues concerning consent, equalities and how to tackle bullying and harassment.

It is always worth saying that I am still of the view that, for most people, working on the Parliamentary Estate is a positive experience and one that they enjoy. Most of our Peers and MPs are good employers and they enjoy the relationship that they have with their staff, which is positive and productive. But that makes those who fall short of those standards even more culpable in many ways, because the culture should always be one of respect and one where we should aim for the highest possible standards. We have a duty as a Parliament to set the highest standards and, where people fall short of them, to ensure that it is dealt with appropriately.

There is still much to do to tackle pervasive prejudices and unacceptable behaviour. They must be tackled at every opportunity. This report is an important start, but we need to continue to work across parties to ensure that we provide the best possible working environment for everybody who works in the Palace of Westminster.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and I thank even more the members of the working group who have worked very hard on an intensive programme to produce this report. I begin by associating myself with what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, just said about the behaviour that we see from the majority of people who are Members of or work in these institutions. That is what we would expect. But the report underlines—as if we needed telling—that not everybody meets those standards. The number of people who claim to have been the subject of sexual harassment or intimidation and bullying is shamefully high.

Any of us who have been around Parliament for any length of time are not totally surprised, because the abuse of power that it is possible to use as a Member of either the other place or here is pretty considerable. If we search our memory, all of us can think of people who have abused that power for a number of unsatisfactory purposes. It is very good to see that at the heart of these proposals there are sensible and comprehensive ways in which people can complain and have those complaints dealt with.

As I said when we discussed this before, underpinning all of this and more important than the complaints procedure is improving the culture of this place. The complaints procedure is dealing just with what happens when things go wrong. The key thing is to ensure that things do not go wrong to the extent that they have in the past. For this, the Code of Conduct is absolutely key. We have seen how the Code of Conduct of your Lordships’ House, which has been strengthened during my time here, has had a very significant impact on the way Members view their role and how they approach some potential conflicts of interest, for example.

The code and the importance attached to it are fundamental elements of these proposals. For example, I hope that all Members and members of staff will have to sign it in a somewhat formal way. In his last intervention in Parliament, Lord Callaghan wrote to the committee considering the Bill that was bringing together the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise. He said that he hoped that the new merged department would keep the oath that all members of the Inland Revenue had had to sign on joining the department. He told how, as a young man, having formally to sign something that said “I will keep taxpayers’ information confidential” and “I will be honest” had a profound impact on him. Although on one level it seems a small thing, formally getting people to sign something will be very important.

When things go wrong we have very sensible ways to start to deal with them, but like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I question the role of the commissioner here. The Statement says the Commons commissioner will,

“have access to legal advice, and will be able to impose a new range of lower level sanctions that may include a written apology, mandatory training or future behaviour agreements”.

The idea of having future behaviour agreements for Members of your Lordships’ House rather appeals to me, but it is quite a change. If we are to do it—this will no doubt be one of the things that we will discuss in our debate after Easter—we will need to make sure that the commissioner here has a very clear remit and that all noble Lords and staff are absolutely clear what that remit is and how it should be exercised.

There is also a question for us as to which body will be reviewing this on a regular basis. The idea of having a six-month review is great, but which committee will have this formally in its remit? I suspect it is the House of Lords Commission but I am not absolutely sure. Some body here has to own this policy or it will not be properly implemented.

However, these are largely questions for the future. Today, we must simply welcome the Statement and the substantive work that underpins it and commit ourselves to do whatever we can to make sure it is properly implemented.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward the Statement. I realise that it has been an intensive work programme for members of the working party and we are grateful to them for the work they have undertaken. However, it is important that the deliberations of the working party are confidential. Obviously there is a great deal of public and press interest in the outcomes, but that is not necessarily the same as the interest in getting things right. They need space to be able to do that. The task that has been set is to ensure that good policies and practice are in place so that problems can be deterred and a proper course of action is available where something goes wrong and deterrence fails. Wide consultation on this is important. I understand that there are still those who are being consulted, which I welcome.

Your Lordships’ House is less well represented on the committee than is the other place—that is a comment not on the quality of the representation but on its number, I hasten to add—with the noble Baroness and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, representing us. I hope that that can be taken into account, with wider consultation of your Lordships’ House as the working party progresses.

I reiterate the point—I made it when we discussed this matter previously—that there is a need for this work to proceed without any undue delay, but there is that responsibility to consult, to engage and to ensure the workability of the proposals. We also need to be able to monitor the effectiveness of what the working party comes up with and seeks to implement. I also reiterate how essential it is that an independent and qualified sexual harassment adviser is in place as soon as possible—I think that everybody would agree with that; it does not need to wait for the outcome of the working party.

Someone who makes a complaint needs support in doing so. I noticed the comments in the report about rape and about advice being given, including if somebody chooses not to go to the police. It is worth noting that very few women who are subjected to rape have as a first point of call gone to the police. They need an adviser and support to be able to do that. Harassment in any form is not something that people come across very often. When they do, they need advice and support to be able to report it and the confidence to do so.

I also welcome the independent HR service for staff. I would advise all staff to be in a trade union. I hope that there will be consultation with all the trade unions which represent staff across the parliamentary estate. I appreciate that one trade union and a staff association are on the working party, but many other staff are represented by other trade unions and they should be consulted as well. Can the noble Baroness confirm that HR advice will be available also to those who are employers, ensuring that best practice is available to them?

Can the noble Baroness say something more about “voluntary and mandatory training”? If training is to be voluntary, I am not sure how we can be confident that we have in place people who are trained in the process and understand it. How will such training be delivered? I have heard a reference to e-training. Those of us who have had any responsibility in this House for fire training will know that it is not always as easy as it sounds to ensure that Members undertake appropriate training. How can that be done?

On the code of conduct, I hope that our own commissioner and committee on standards will be consulted on this policy prior to it going forward. The position of Peers is somewhat different from that of MPs. We would want to ensure that we were fully engaged. Can I have an assurance that our commissioner and committee will be consulted, particularly with reference to sanctions?

As a party, we have found that policies cannot be static on an issue such as this; they can always be refined and improved in light of experience. We have sought that confidence by taking the advice of an independent QC with experience in these issues. Will the working party ensure that Parliament does the same?

Getting this right is very important for the confidence of everybody on the Parliamentary Estate and those who wish to work here in the future, as well as for the confidence of the public in the institutions of Parliament. A flawed policy would be the worst possible outcome. There has to be a policy in place that has the confidence of those who may be thinking of making a complaint and those who may be complained against. It has to have the confidence of everybody to ensure that it is workable.

I welcome this interim Statement. We want to support the committee in its further work and engage in further consultation to ensure that we have a policy that is fit for purpose, a policy that will inspire the confidence not just of Parliament but of the public as well.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, but more significantly for the work she is undertaking, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the committee. I gather that the group has met 11 times so far and not all the meetings have been short. The members of the group have taken on a very significant commitment and we are very grateful for their work. I think they are finding that it is a lot more complicated than it looks, because of the plethora of employers and the different sorts of case that might arise. At one level it is relatively straightforward, although not totally straightforward, dealing with complaints that take place with a single employer, whether it is members of staff or members of an individual political party. The problem that arises here is when you have people involved from different areas—members of House staff and members of parties. This is why we are going to need a twin-track system in place under which the parties will retain disciplinary procedures but there is also an independent route for when a potential case of harassment involves a perpetrator and a victim from different parties. Getting that right is going to be extremely important.

I stress the importance in all of this of changing the culture of Parliament. It is vital, of course, that we put procedures in place to deal with cases that have occurred, but the main benefit of this whole process, we hope, will be to help to change the culture of Parliament. A number of proposals which are being worked up will help to achieve this: the behavioural code will help; the mandatory training will help, although I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that this must not be just e-training. I have tried three times this morning to complete the fire training, only to have the system block me. My response now is to question whether I am going to do it at all. In any event, there is inadequate assurance, in my mind, that people have got the message if they are just doing a cursory bit of e-training.

People need to understand that coming to work here requires a particular standard of behaviour, which at the moment, they clearly do not. The decision, for example, to close the sports and social club sends something of a message about the way we want people to behave, but that is only one of a range of things. My main plea to the noble Baroness as she and her colleagues continue their work into the new year is that we must put as much stress on the culture of the place, so that we have fewer of these incidents to worry about in future, as we do to making sure that the procedures for dealing with them are as good as they can be.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments. I shall keep my comments relatively brief because I am not sure how much longer my voice is going to hold out. Certainly, we want wide consultation. It is critical that we have everyone on the parliamentary estate brought into the new procedures, so I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that there will be further consultation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I have been giving a strong voice to your Lordships’ House in the committee. I accept that we are smaller in number than our colleagues in the other place, but of course we want to make sure that Peers are properly represented. There will be much further consultation to be done and quite a lot of this will be done in stages: some things can be done quite quickly but some things will take longer. There will be a lot of opportunity for other people to get involved as and when they can.

I certainly agree with the noble Baroness’s comments about the need for a new independent sexual violence advocate. Certainly, the majority of the evidence we have had from the experts is that many victims do not want to go to the police initially and they really do need support and help. That is absolutely critical and we are mindful of that. We are very keen to get that up and running as quickly as possible.

I want to stress how extremely valuable the staff representation on the group has been. We have had two unions represented—Unite and the NUJ, which is linked to the SNP—as well as MAPSA. They have been excellent in representing staff views and bringing them to us. They have undertaken surveys of members—

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The past couple of weeks have been very eventful for the Government. The Prime Minister has travelled to Brussels three times. On the first occasion, she returned empty-handed because of her partners in the DUP. The second was a last-minute dash across the channel for breakfast with Barnier to save the deal that allowed for progress to phase 2. Now, on the third occasion, she returns home early as the UK once again has to sit out the second day of a major EU summit.

When the Prime Minister returned last week to make her Statement to Parliament, for one, brief, shining moment, her Cabinet was united. Some on the Tory Benches even found themselves echoing the warm words of EU figures such as Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker. We all paid tribute, quite rightly, to the Prime Minister’s tenacity in securing a sufficient-progress decision, first from the Commission and then from the European Council.

Unfortunately, the Cabinet unity was short lived and gave way to a weekend of unsanctioned briefings and policy proposals. Yet again, the Foreign Secretary used a newspaper interview to engage in an open conversation with the Prime Minister, with a warning that she should not seek to maintain full regulatory alignment with the EU to avoid the UK becoming what he described as “a vassal state”. The Environment Secretary suggested that the Tories should abandon their manifesto commitment to keep EU-derived employment and workers’ rights and scrap the vital protections contained in the working time directive. Such briefings from Cabinet members are not only unhelpful and undermine the Prime Minister and her Government, but could damage the UK’s wider interests.

Despite the positive news that EU leaders gave formal approval for the launch of phase 2 talks, the summit served as a reminder that, while we focus on our withdrawal from the EU, the EU is focusing on its own challenges and shaping its own future. Important discussions took place on co-ordinated efforts to stem illegal migration; the need to increase the resilience of the economic and monetary union; education and culture; and climate change. While Theresa May confirmed the UK’s intention to remain a part of Erasmus+ until 2020, the EU27 took decisions on the longer-term future of that programme and many others. The conclusions also feature important commitments to the implementation of the Paris agreement, the continuation of sanctions against Russia, and restating the agreed position on Jerusalem and a two-state solution. To give the Prime Minister credit, she has spoken out on these issues, but will the Leader tell the House whether President Trump has returned the Prime Minister’s call from last week? If he has, what discussions took place regarding Israel?

It is quite an irony that while Michael Gove prepared to launch his broadside on EU-derived workers’ rights, EU members committed to implementing the European pillar of social rights, accelerating important social initiatives already in progress at national and EU levels, and taking renewed action to tackle the gender pay gap. I suspect that the Prime Minister might have a particular interest in the last area, given last week’s revelations of a significant gender pay gap among special advisers at No. 10.

Returning to the Brexit negotiations, it is clear that the second phase will be challenging and needs good will and trust on all sides. In that respect, I repeat my comment from last week, to which I have already alluded: the Cabinet must stop freelancing and the Prime Minister must insist that her Ministers back her. David Davis’s mixed and contradictory messages last week were unhelpful. I hope that at the next Cabinet meeting, which I think is tomorrow, the Prime Minister will be able to ensure that all Cabinet members are prepared to accept the principle of collective responsibility and accountability, even during the upcoming Christmas Recess.

Tomorrow, the Cabinet discusses our future relationship with the EU. Perhaps because of deep divisions, it has taken 18 months for that discussion to take place. The clock is ticking down. It is clear that a transitional period will be possible only if there is high-level agreement on a future relationship that can be struck in the EU’s original timescale, but with phase 2 talks beginning shortly it is essential that these discussions are productive and that the Government can set out their end goal, engage with the public to explain it, urgently communicate it to the EU and remain committed to securing that outcome.

Assuming that consensus is achieved at tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting—that might be a big “if”—will the Minister confirm when the UK expects to communicate its detailed wish list to Parliament and to Michel Barnier’s team? The noble Baroness will understand why I raise this key point again: businesses are making decisions now about their future regarding location and employment issues. Will she confirm the terms that the UK is seeking for the transition period? In the light of the comments made from the EU side that it would not extend transitional arrangements to Gibraltar, will she confirm that the Government will challenge that position?

The noble Baroness referred to Northern Ireland in the Statement. What we have heard on Northern Ireland so far has been nothing beyond the aspirational. Will she tell us what practical considerations have been made and what decisions are being taken to ensure there is not a hard border, given the Government’s commitment to saying it cannot remain in the single market and the customs union? Some of us are struggling to understand how that can be achieved.

The Prime Minister’s very welcome commitment on Erasmus+ was in the context of only the current Budget. When can universities and students expect certainty on their ability to participate in the programme post-2020?

Last week, the noble Baroness disappointingly confirmed that the joint report does not cover onward movement of UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU but said that this would be revisited in phase 2 of the negotiations, yet today’s Statement refers to UK citizens’ rights being “protected”. Can she reflect on that? “Reciprocal agreement” implies equal status between citizens of the EU and citizens of the UK. However, a Commission memo published on 12 December suggests that UK citizens will have to rely on limited rights under the Blue Card directive or the ICT/students and researchers directives to settle in another member state. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could comment on this and give a definitive answer on whether the Government expect to maintain and secure full onward movement rights for UK citizens in the EU. If not, the Statement is possibly not being entirely accurate in saying that UK citizens’ rights will be fully protected.

The Prime Minister said in her Statement that until the UK withdraws from the EU, it continues to play a full role in meetings. Can the noble Baroness therefore say whether the Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, last week left the Agriculture and Fisheries Council early to attend votes in the Commons? If so, has there been any detrimental impact on the UK fishing fleet or has it lost out on access to any EU quotas as a result? Or did it really not make any difference?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is the time for end-of-term reports, and this Statement represents that of the Government in respect of Brexit. Like the assiduous student that she was, the Prime Minister has carefully presented her course work. She has one agreement to show for almost nine months of negotiations since the triggering of Article 50. It is in three parts. The Government have agreed to honour their financial commitments—good, but this was merely bowing to the inevitable. They have agreed to allow EU migrants to stay in the UK—good, but this principle was never seriously in contention. They have kicked the Northern Ireland problem down the road—bad, but given the fundamental incompatibility contained in the Government’s position, this is an inevitable delay until or unless the Government work out what they want their trading relationship with the EU to be.

In terms of legislation, we are to have at least eight Brexit Bills and 1,000 statutory instruments before March 2019, and in reality many of these will be needed well before then. Yet not a single piece of primary legislation, far less a single statutory instrument, has been enacted and no Brexit-related Bill has even completed its passage through a single House. It is extremely difficult to see how the Government plan to get all this legislation through in a timely manner, but given the importance of the subject matter, can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Government will produce their proposals in time for both Houses to deal with them properly and within the normal conventions on timetabling?

As far as the future trading relationship is concerned, and indeed on a host of other issues, including the Government’s attitude to ongoing migration to and from the EU, it is pointless pressing the Leader on the Government’s attitude because they literally have no policy. Can she, however, confirm that last week’s agreement means that Northern Ireland citizens who retain their EU citizenship will have more rights than other UK citizens? If, as I believe, this is so, it will be deeply offensive to many people. Given that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said to your Lordships’ House last Monday that,

“we are not ruling out”—[Official Report, 11/12/17; col. 1368.]

UK nationals retaining EU citizenship, will the Government now positively propose to the EU that UK citizens will be able to retain their EU citizenship so that the majority of us are not reduced to second-class status in comparison with our Northern Ireland compatriots? Given that when the Government do eventually adopt a policy on our future trading relationship with the EU this will be of fundamental importance to the Brexit negotiations, and indeed the country’s position going forward, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that both Houses of Parliament will be able to have a full debate and vote on the Government’s proposals before they are transmitted to the EU? Would not anything less be inconsistent with Parliament taking back control?

In order that people at large might have a clearer understanding of the consequences of Brexit for the economy, will the Leader now seek to persuade the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary to publish the infamous sectoral reports? They contain nothing which is commercially sensitive or could jeopardise our negotiating position and there is no reason why everyone should not be able to see them. The current arrangements for parliamentarians to see them are disproportionately restrictive and should in any event be relaxed, but the documents should simply become publicly available. The only conclusion one can draw from the Government’s current approach is that they do not want people to see how complicated Brexit will be in practice or to understand the depth and beneficial nature of our current economic relationships with the EU.

Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm the estimate in today’s Financial Times that Brexit is already costing, not benefiting, the UK some £340 million a week, as a result of lower growth which has flowed from the referendum result? It is very tempting at this stage of the term to give the Government an overall mark for their term’s work, but I fear that that would be embarrassing. I simply pose the question asked by many a frustrated and disappointed supervisor: “Don’t you think it would be better if you took another course?”.

Brexit Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 11th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I listened with interest when she said that there was now a new sense of optimism, because, if ever the term “political rollercoaster” was apt, it has to be now.

We welcome an agreement that—subject to this week’s European Council—allows the UK to proceed to the next stage of these talks, allowing exploration of what the future relationship will look like and providing certainty about how our exit will impact individuals, consumers and businesses. It is important now for negotiators not to have their hands tied by unhelpful and ephemeral red lines, but to keep options on the table. Swift progress on a time-limited transition, rather than implementation, is essential. We have always said that these negotiations are complex. On both sides, integrity and honourable behaviour are essential, as is competence. The Government must be serious in both intent and actions—and that is all the Government, not just some Ministers. There can be no freelancing on this and the Prime Minister has the right to insist that her Ministers back her.

Last week, many of us cleared our diaries for Tuesday in expectation of a Statement regarding an agreement on a deal with the EU that would allow us to progress to the second crucial phase of the Brexit negotiations. On Monday evening, it became clear, in the most spectacularly embarrassing way, that such optimism was misplaced, as the Prime Minister’s DUP colleagues who keep her in government would not support the arrangements. It is hard to understand how such a humiliating failure could have been allowed to happen. But then, after renewed and long, intensive discussions by the Prime Minister and her team, it was finally announced that the Government had reached agreement with the EU to move to phase 2. We welcome the fact that talks will move on. However, there is a fear that this seems to be unravelling quicker than a hand-knitted Christmas jumper.

Can the noble Baroness confirm the status of the agreement that has been reached? Yesterday the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, said that the agreement was not legally binding unless there was a final deal and that it was instead a mere statement of intent. Today, however, he said that the agreement is a legal guarantee that will be honoured whatever the outcome. Which is correct?

Is this agreement conditional or not? In all three areas—the honouring of obligations through the financial settlement, on citizens’ rights and the border with Ireland—there needs to be clarity on whether there is a genuine, lasting agreement or a possible agreement dependent on the next stage of negotiations and our future relationship with the EU 27. That has to be made crystal clear so that there can be no misunderstanding at any time. In her response the noble Baroness may find it useful to clarify the implications for this agreement of the phrase:

“In the absence of agreed solutions”,


in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the joint report with regard to the border with the Republic of Ireland.

Given that the European Council has yet to formally accept the Commission’s recommendations, does the noble Baroness consider that the comments by David Davis will help or hinder in future negotiations? Even today he confessed on the radio that, “I don’t have to be very clever. I don’t have to know that much. I do just have to be calm”. That does not seem to be a great strategy for proceeding. Across the country many businesses do not feel at all calm. They need certainty to plan for their future, and the Government have a duty to provide such certainty. Given that the Brexit Secretary is all over the place and hardly a safe pair of hands, can I seek assurances that there is now ongoing engagement with the European Parliament given its role in advising the Commission and the Council, and its power of veto on the withdrawal agreement?

The Prime Minister previously declined an invitation to address the European Parliament and recently had her session with its Conference of Presidents cancelled at the last minute due to political group presidents being unable to find diary space. Can the noble Baroness indicate whether the Prime Minister has scheduled a new meeting with representatives of the European Parliament given the importance of engaging with them? To return to a point made earlier, does the noble Baroness also agree that when continuing such negotiations it is unwise to set unrealistic red lines?

The Commission’s communication to the European Council notes that “significant divergences remain” on future governance and enforcement and, specifically on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, it questions the agreement regarding the border. On page 9 it says that the intention to avoid a hard border,

“seems hard to reconcile with the United Kingdom’s communicated decision to leave the internal market and the Customs Union”.

I heard what the noble Baroness said regarding Northern Ireland. Can she tell us whether this is a commitment, an agreement or merely a statement of intent?

The Government’s future partnership paper outlined a number of potential dispute settlement methods without committing to or endorsing any of them. Can the noble Baroness tell us when we can expect the Government to commit to a specific approach?

On citizens’ rights, both the joint report and the Prime Minister’s open letter to EU citizens earlier today leave many questions unanswered. For example, when will this new independent national authority—I have never heard of it before—be created, and will separate primary legislation be required? It was not mentioned in the previous Queen’s Speech. Clearly, there has been some consideration of its role; how much will it cost? The noble Baroness spoke of significant amounts of money coming back to the UK that would not be spent in Europe, and I recall that significant financial savings of £350 million a week would be made available to the National Health Service. Can she tell us specifically how much of that will be spent on this new agency or authority?

The Prime Minister’s Statement talks of,

“a fair and reciprocal deal that will guarantee the rights of more than 3 million EU citizens living in the UK and 1 million UK nationals living in the EU so they can carry on living their lives as before”.

Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this is absolutely accurate? The joint report makes no reference to preserving the ability of UK citizens living in the EU 27 to continue moving freely between those countries. For example, will a UK citizen working for a company in Frankfurt with offices based in Milan and Paris still be able to be posted to any of those offices to live and work or will it just apply to the country that they live in now?

Finally, in my lifetime there has been no more important negotiations for the future of this country than these. We need wisdom and thoughtfulness, not just wishful thinking. Take the events of the last week or so, particularly those over the weekend. Not only do they not inspire confidence for British business and in Parliament but, equally seriously, they may damage our reputation and standing with the other EU countries. When the noble Baroness is sitting round the Cabinet table with her colleagues later this coming week, will she read the riot act to squabbling, inconsistent Ministers? It is not just themselves and their party that they are damaging but the national interest.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on an achievement which many —including many of her colleagues—thought was impossible. She has survived to fight another day and on that she is to be congratulated. The deal she struck last week, however, is not the stuff of congratulations. Before we look at it, can the Leader of the House confirm its status, to take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith? Is it a mere “statement of intent”, which the Brexit Secretary believed it to be yesterday, or “more than legally enforceable”, which he believes this morning? Or does its status change with the Secretary of State’s mood?

There are three main pillars of the deal, and the first is citizens’ rights. Friday’s agreement confirms that there will be no certainty until any final deal is reached, leaving EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU as continuing bargaining chips. How then can the Prime Minister claim that this is her top priority? This uncertainty is compounded by the provision that all 3 million EU citizens in the UK will then have two years to submit applications for registration. Until these applications are satisfactorily processed, their status will be unconfirmed. Can the Government give the 3 million any assurances as to when they hope to complete the registration process? A charge is payable also by those who currently do not have permanent residency. How much will that charge be and how many people do the Government estimate will have to pay it?

On the financial settlement, the Government argue that the payment will be up to £40 billion. Can the Leader confirm that this figure does not include over £10 billion of contingent liabilities and could, therefore, be significantly greater?

I have mentioned so far issues that are capable of resolution, albeit at significant cost. The issue of the Northern Ireland border is not. As Jonathan Powell put it in Saturday’s Financial Times:

“In fact, the problem of the border is not resolved at all but simply left hanging”.


The Government’s preferred solution to the border issue appears to involve agreeing with the EU that we remain effectively, if not in name, inside the single market in terms of rules and regulations. In other words, we will supinely accept whatever rules the EU adopts. Can the Leader confirm that this is indeed the Government’s preferred outcome? If so, will she accept that far from taking back control of our markets and trade, we have completely lost control, and in doing so made it practically impossible to carry out independent trade deals which improve on EU trade deals because we have agreed to follow EU rules?

One aspect of the Northern Ireland agreement is particularly troubling to me. People in Northern Ireland will retain EU citizenship. They will, in the words of Leo Varadkar,

“have the right to study in Paris, buy property in Spain, work in Berlin”.

They will also retain an EU passport. I and my children are denied these rights. I will be reduced to waving to friends from Northern Ireland, with as cheery a hello as I can muster, as they sail past me in European airport passport queues—they in the EU citizens’ line and me with the rest of the world. I will be furious, and I suspect that many millions of citizens of Great Britain will also be furious, when they learn that they have become second-class citizens in their own country.

However, despite all the flaws, the Government will now move on to the trade talks. I realise it is pointless asking the Leader what the Government hope the outcome will be as they have not made up their mind but, before they do, I suggest that she has a quiet word with the Brexit Secretary. In his interview yesterday on “The Andrew Marr Show”, he said that he would take the best bits of existing EU trade deals and,

“add to that the bits missing, which is the services”.

Could she point out that services represent 40% of our exports to the EU and that this share is growing rapidly? Far from being the bits which are missing, free access to EU markets for our service exporters would be vital to the economic prosperity of the UK were we to leave the EU.

The Prime Minister deserves a celebratory glass for surviving until Christmas. She should savour it because the difficult part of the EU negotiations is now about to begin.

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 23rd October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. It serves to remind us how interlinked with the EU we are on so many issues, as she outlined. It is not just about having common interests; we are co-dependent on issues that affect not just our economy, but our safety, security and well-being as a nation. We also add our appreciation for the work of the Royal Navy for intercepting criminals involved in people trafficking and smuggling, and for the lives it saves.

At a previous European Council summit in June 2015 the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that the digital single market,

“is a prime example of where we need the EU to unlock the potential”,

of the,

“single market for the benefit of businesses and consumers”.

Since then, we in the UK have played a leading role in the EU’s approach. That has clearly been of great benefit, given the comments in the Statement, but can the noble Baroness tell us how we will continue to play that role in shaping policy, given that we will no longer have a seat at the table?

Important progress has been made since the last summit on security and defence across a number of areas, including cybersecurity, which is essential across Europe and here at home. Amber Rudd, as Home Secretary, has been very clear that it is totally unthinkable that we could crash out of the EU with no ongoing arrangements on those issues, yet David Davis, as Brexit Secretary, still maintains that leaving the EU without any deal must remain an option. Liam Fox is adamant that there will not be the Armageddon some have predicted, which implies that all will be okay. It will not. Surely we should aim for better than it just not being Armageddon. Will the noble Baroness clarify that, if no agreement were to be made on the key issues and we crashed out of the EU in what has been described as the no-deal scenario, it would not be business as usual on defence, security or policing? Does she accept that that scenario is the worst possible outcome and totally irresponsible?

Leading into this summit, the Prime Minister’s Florence speech was helpful. We welcomed the change in position and tone, but we await the details. She will be aware of the very deep unease from businesses about what the transition or implementation deal will look like. The importance and seriousness of this is highlighted by the strongly worded letter to the Government from the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, EEF—the Manufacturers’ Organisation—and the Federation of Small Businesses. Surely even the most ideological and ardent of Brexiteers recognises the legitimacy of their concerns. With investment being held back, their warnings about the future of the economy must be heeded.

The transition period is now accepted by most as essential. I am happy to call it an implementation period if that helps. I also welcome the Government’s recognition of the so-called divorce bill, without which we cannot make any significant progress. However, the negotiations are complex. The Prime Minister is right to seek out opportunities for more informal discussions as well.

David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, was mocked in the House of Commons last month when he said that no one said Brexit would be easy. Yet that is exactly what Ministers, including him, said. Yesterday, Liam Fox defended his comments that securing a post-Brexit trade deal would be the “easiest in history” because apparently he was talking only about trade and the real problem is politics. Today, Boris Johnson jumped in feet first, as usual, telling EU leaders to “get on with it”. Perhaps Liam Fox is right that politics is the problem—not the politics of the EU, but of the Cabinet. There is no doubt that the progress so far is inadequate for the talks to move on formally to the next stage.

In recognition that some progress has been made, it has been agreed that preliminary talks about the next stage of negotiations should start. In effect, these are talks about talks. That is not, as some in the Cabinet appear to prefer, the EU being difficult; it is quite the opposite. What makes the negotiations harder for the Prime Minister is not the European Union, but her own Cabinet. Every time they speak out to contradict her, every time they speak out to attack the EU, the process or the progress, every time they fly yet another kite about what they think will win them votes in the next Tory leadership election, they seriously weaken her authority and undermine her ability to negotiate. The prime aim of negotiations is clarity about objectives, but for that the Prime Minister needs the Cabinet to unite or to choose one that will.

When Boris Johnson asserts that,

“the entire British cabinet is united around every dot, comma, and syllable of the Florence speech”,

we know he says that in full knowledge of the limits of his own credibility. That is also undermined by the Cabinet Minister quoted today in the press as saying:

“We haven’t grasped the nettle on the trade deal yet and we really have to soon. Theresa’s fear is that the moment we do, half of us will walk out—we just don’t know which half it will be”.


Such division and dysfunction at the heart of government weakens the UK’s position at every single point in negotiations. Given all that, we understand why the withdrawal Bill is now stalled. Can the noble Baroness give us any idea when it will be picked up again and when its Committee stage will start in the House of Commons, given the importance of the issues in the Bill?

On the three issues in the conclusions of the summit, first, we welcome the progress being made on citizens’ rights. It has taken far longer than necessary and the Prime Minister should recognise the urgency and bring it to a conclusion. Secondly, despite the optimism in the Statement, the progress on the Irish border seems a recognition of the issues that have to be resolved rather than a way of resolving them. Agreement on those principles is welcome, even essential, but it is the action that brings those principles into being that is important. What progress has been made on that?

The financial obligations—the divorce bill—are becoming confusing. The Prime Minister put a figure on the financial obligations in her Florence speech. Is there now a recognition that that is not the final word and it has yet to be negotiated? Finally, can the noble Baroness confirm that when David Davis talks about the timetable of the talks being “Barnier’s timetable”, it is in fact the timetable that he agreed back in June? It is as much David Davis’s timetable as it is Michel Barnier’s. I hope the noble Baroness will take the message back to the Cabinet that the frustration—not just of Parliament but of the whole country—with its antics is making it harder for the Prime Minister, and that she will be able to answer the questions I have raised today.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, during the past week the Prime Minister has adopted two novel negotiating tactics. First, she decided on a personal diplomatic mission to the Commission, to be conducted over dinner. Yet according to reports, the meal lasted only just over an hour, which was barely enough time for a leisurely pizza, far less the sort of event that was likely to commend itself to the President of the European Commission. What was the purpose of this event, given its brevity and the lack of any new substantive proposals made at it by the Prime Minister? Secondly, the Prime Minister adopted the stance, “Please give me a good deal because my domestic parliamentary position is so weak”. Is the noble Baroness aware of any successful negotiations in which pleading one’s weakness has strengthened one’s hand? Do the Government really believe that the threat of no deal is credible, when the Brexit Secretary has described it as in effect a negotiating ploy just left on the table for the time being and the Home Secretary has called such an option simply untenable?

One of the first issues debated at the summit was the digital single market. The Prime Minister says that,

“it is right to keep up the pressure on completing its implementation … This will continue to be of benefit to us even after we leave the European Union”.

But we will not be members of the digital single market, so it is inconceivable that we will be as well off in respect of it outside as we would inside. What commitment are the Government prepared to make that, outside the EU, they will adopt the standards and regulations of the digital market so that we will gain the benefit of it?

The Government say that they welcome the EU sanctions on North Korea—as does the whole House. We are shortly to get a sanctions Bill in your Lordships’ House to deal with the position post Brexit, under which we will take control of and have sovereignty over own sanctions, but does the noble Baroness agree that, on matters such as North Korea, such sanctions are effective only if we are in lock-step with the EU so that a common front is presented to the North Koreans, or against whomever else such sanctions are adopted? Have the Government given any thought to what sort of mechanism they will put in place to ensure that, as far as sanctions are concerned, it is possible to adopt that kind of lock-step? At the moment, it is completely unclear how that will be achieved.

The Prime Minister states that, up to now:

“Both sides have approached these talks with professionalism and a constructive spirit—and we should recognise what has been achieved to date”.


That is undoubtedly true, but we should also recognise what has not been achieved to date. Last week should have been the point at which substantive progress had been achieved on the three matters which it had been agreed would be prioritised so that we could get on to discussing the future trading and other relationships with the EU, but the truth is that we are nowhere near that point. At best, we might have reached it by the end of December, in which case substantive negotiations on all future aspects of our relationship will not start until January, a mere few months before those negotiations must be completed.

On citizens’ rights, one of the individual issues that have caused the hold-up, the Government come out with warm words, but why have they not simply given an unequivocal commitment that they will protect in full the rights of all EU citizens now? The Government say that we are making great progress and that we are almost there, but we do not know that and, certainly, the 3 million EU citizens in this country do not believe it. They retain a huge degree of scepticism about their status going forward. This is to be “settled status”, which we are told is going to be done easily and cheaply, but what time period have the Government in mind to grant settled status to more than 3 million EU nationals in this country? What resources are available? Are they satisfied that the Home Office and the Immigration Service have either the track record, the ethos or the resources to do this in a fair and expeditious manner?

On Northern Ireland, the principles are all agreed. We want—the Government want and the Irish want—a frictionless border. However, we have had a customs White Paper which should really have been a Green Paper because it asks as many questions as it answers. It said, for example, that more than 80% of north-south trade was by SMEs and there will be no requirement for customs processes at the land border. That sounds rather reassuring, but the weasel words are “at the land border”. What sort of processes do the Government have in mind not at the land border, and what kind of costs do they think SMEs are going to have to incur to establish these processes? In what degree of detail have the Government, somewhere in their mind, any sense of what these processes might look like?

On the financial settlement, absolutely no progress whatever appears to have been made last week.

Finally, the Prime Minister spent quite a bit of her Statement under the heading “Moving forwards”, which is quite an achievement, given that there has been virtually no moving forwards. She says that she wants to leave in a smooth and orderly way. One key element of leaving in a smooth and orderly way is to transpose all existing EU law into domestic law. The withdrawal Bill, a relatively straight Bill in concept, is totally bogged down because of divisions in the Cabinet. What can the noble Baroness say about when she expects that Bill to start in the Commons, far less here? Because once it has gone through, and with a bit of luck it might be done by Easter, we will have 1,000 statutory instruments to get through before we are in a position to begin to contemplate withdrawal in a smooth and orderly way. There is nothing in this Statement to give any objective observer any sense that smooth and orderly is the way that this Government are heading.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 19th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to detain the House on this matter. The Motion before us looks pretty innocuous and we on this side have no objection to the Government’s proposals.

However, as the noble Baroness has explained, the need for this Motion arises from the fact that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not considered the SI. The reason for that, as we have heard, is that it has not been reconstituted since the general election. Indeed, I believe it has not met since March. The reason for that is because the Commons has not nominated its Members. I fully understand the convention that this House does not criticise the workings of the Commons, and I have no intention of doing so. The delay in this case is caused entirely by the Government’s contentious approach to party balance on all Commons committees, which rightly caused significant political controversy, debate and delay in the other place.

I have three questions for the noble Baroness, as I understand the process in the Commons is slowly cranking into gear. First, will the Government now do all they can to expedite the formation of this very important Joint Committee? Secondly, do the Government have any date in mind when they believe that this will be achieved? Thirdly, how many affirmative resolution statutory instruments are there in the pipeline that we would normally have considered and which have not been able to be brought before this House since the last meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in March?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I concur with the comments made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. This is a really sad state of affairs. I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing this Motion before the House today as it is the right course of action. It is exceptional and urgent, and not to do so would have grave consequences.

Having said that, this is unprecedented. I do not know whether any other noble Lords can recall this happening before; certainly I cannot. On a straw poll of other colleagues, I am not aware that it has ever happened before that the JCSI has not been set up in time for the House to consider business of this kind.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, makes an important point. The Labour names are ready and waiting to set up this committee. The only thing holding it up is that the Government have failed to do so. So it is right that we consider this today, but it is an emergency situation; it is unprecedented and can only be exceptional. In this case, I think the noble Baroness has to speak for the Government and not just for the House of Lords. She has to tell us when the committee will be set up and assure us that it will not happen again and another such Motion will not come before this House.

Brexit: UK Plans

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 9th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is the first day back and we are discussing Brexit already. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, although I admit I felt an increasing sense of déjà vu as she went through it—probably I was not the only one. So much of it is vague and repeats previous speeches, Statements and comments that we have heard before.

At the outset, I want to pick up on one specific aspect. The noble Baroness will know of my interest in it from when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and I faced each other across the Dispatch Box on Home Office legislation. I listened carefully to the section on security—it is so vague and unspecific that it tells us absolutely nothing about priorities for negotiations or expected outcomes. Given the importance of the issue, we need more than that; phrases such as “bold, new strategic agreements” and “comprehensive frameworks” have been said time and again, but at this stage I do not know what they mean. I want to flag that up early on.

The noble Baroness mentioned the two White Papers that were published today—one is on the customs Bill. Is she aware that there are only 10 copies—nine now, because I have one—available to Members of the House of Lords? That seems entirely inappropriate and I hope she can look into it. Can she also say something about the consultation period? Cabinet Office guidelines indicate about 12 weeks as the norm for consultation, yet this paper—and similarly in the one on trade—has no deadline for consultation except to say that responses are encouraged on this by 3 November. That is less than four weeks away, and the other deadline is 6 November. That does not seem appropriate. I assume that if responses are encouraged by those dates, they are also the deadline for responses to be considered, and negotiations. I would be grateful if she could comment on those two points.

This is a hugely significant point in negotiations, the importance of which cannot be overestimated. On the day Article 50 was invoked, the countdown started for the UK to leave the EU. Only one thing was clear: two years is a very short time to ensure that we resolve all the issues relating to Brexit and our future relationship with the EU, including on trade, security, finance and our domestic regulations and legislation for public protection. We are around a third of the way through and it seems that too little significant progress has been made. Within days, we should have clarity on whether sufficient progress has been made in phase 1, to allow us to proceed to phase 2 in a couple of weeks’ time, or if negotiations will have to be delayed.

It is clear that the Prime Minister’s visit to Florence was designed to break the deadlock, and her speech was important for a number of reasons. First, it was the first time that she had accepted the need for a transitional phase—she prefers “implementation” phase; I do not care what it is called, but her recognition that such a period was required was important. Recognising the problems ahead, she tried to use the speech to jump-start the negotiations by supporting talks on a transitional, or implementation, deal.

We have always been clear, especially given the number of issues on which there is no certainty, that to prevent a Brexit cliff edge for our economy we must negotiate a time-limited transitional deal that maintains the same basic terms as we currently have with the EU. That means remaining in a customs union with the EU and within the single market while we build the bridge about which the Prime Minister spoke to a strong final deal. I welcome her commitment on that, but any negotiations should start from where we are now. Ruling out options at the start is like trying to operate with one arm tied behind our back.

This pragmatic approach has been welcomed by many of those organisations, including the CBI and trade unions, which fear the impact on businesses and jobs of a cliff-edge exit. It was a significant policy shift for the Prime Minister. She rightly recognised the warnings from businesses that opposition to transitional arrangements was already hitting the economy. Both the head of UBS Investment Bank and the chairman of RBS, and many others, have reinforced the message that unless transitional arrangements are agreed soon, there will be a significant shift of both staff and businesses out of the UK. Yet within days of the Prime Minister’s welcome comment, five of her Cabinet Ministers revealed conflicting and contradictory views. It is no surprise that the list of names is probably very similar to that for the next Conservative leadership contest. I am sure that many share the view that, following a disastrous election campaign which has weakened the Prime Minister at a time when, in the national interest, she has to be at her strongest, she is being further undermined by members of her Cabinet.

The Prime Minister’s speech was also part of her pitch that on the three key phase 1 issues, progress had been made and that progress was adequate for phase 2 to proceed. It will be a huge failure of government strategy if those talks are delayed. The Prime Minister is right that some progress has been made on the three issues, but the question is whether it is enough. It is clear from last week’s events in Strasbourg that the EU does not think that it is.

Let us look at those three issues. For those of us who voted in your Lordships’ House before the negotiations started on arrangements for EU nationals and the consequences for UK nationals in the EU, it is disappointing that this issue has not been resolved. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointing around the Chamber and muttering. Unless he wishes to comment, I will continue. Businesses and academia are already experiencing some of the difficulties that we feared. The lack of agreement means that both here and across the EU, British and European Union citizens feel their lives blighted by uncertainty. Many in your Lordships’ House and the other place were persuaded by the Government not to vote for our Article 50 amendment, as the Government had promised that this was an early priority and would be resolved at the start of negotiations. The Government might find it harder to earn such trust in the future.

On the matter of the Irish border, there is an agreement on the required outcome, but the Government have been unable to say how it can be achieved. Initial proposals for a “technical solution” have been ridiculed by experts. A leaked report by the Irish Revenue Commissioners sets out in stark detail the vast increase in the amount of resources and bureaucracy that may result from Brexit, which will be significant at all levels and for all communities. Not only do the Revenue Commissioners warn that an open border will be impossible from a customs perspective but they even expect the important annual ploughing championships to be hit. That will affect the quarter of a million people who attend that event, and it makes a serious point about the possibility of additional paperwork being needed for machinery imported from the UK.

On the third issue—agreeing a formula for the “divorce bill”—not only is there no agreement with the EU but there is no agreement within the Cabinet either. Depending on your point of view, Boris Johnson is either an unprincipled, gaffe-prone Minister who shoots from the hip or a first-rate diplomatic Foreign Secretary. But even he has had to retreat from telling the EU to “go whistle” to accepting the need for an agreed formula and for quick progress to be made.

There is a debate to be had on whether progress is adequate to proceed to the next stage. The Prime Minister’s confidence about this is not widely shared. A war of words seeking to apportion blame will not make it any easier, but discussion and negotiation will, as will honesty and openness about the sticking points and difficulties. It is therefore all the more worrying that two Conservative Party Members of the European Parliament, a former chief whip and a deputy leader, who were honest enough to express their view and vote accordingly that progress was not yet sufficient, have been suspended from their party. That does not inspire confidence that these issues are being examined with an open mind.

I have three specific questions for the noble Baroness. Your Lordships’ House will have seen the joint statement from the TUC and CBI on citizens’ rights. The Prime Minister said in her Statement that she expected a quick agreement, but we have heard that before. Can she be more specific? Can the noble Baroness confirm that the UK negotiating team expects an agreement on citizens’ rights this week, thus concluding phase 1 of the negotiations? If not, will the Government keep an open mind, as urged by your Lordships’ House and now by many others, including the CBI and the TUC?

Secondly, returning to last week’s events in the European Parliament, it was significant that both President Juncker and Monsieur Barnier have addressed MEPs, as they do regularly. The Prime Minister has had an opportunity to do so and has not accepted the invitation. Given the possibility of a delay to phase 2, will the Prime Minister now reconsider the invitation for her to do the same?

Finally, if the Prime Minister’s Florence speech is really to break the impasse, it is clear that we must overcome the sticking point that is the financial settlement. I am not asking for details of figures, but have the UK’s negotiators been permitted to discuss potential figures at this week’s talks? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to address those questions as well as the points made about the two White Papers published today.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, since our debate in September on the Government’s so-called position papers, there have been three developments. First, we had the Florence speech, of which this Statement is a précis. Secondly, we had the Prime Minister’s conference speech, which was noticeable for the fact that less than 5% of it was devoted to the most important issue facing the country; namely, Brexit. Thirdly, we have had an extraordinary degree of infighting among members of the Cabinet. Many of us have lived through periods when there has been infighting within our own parties, and we know what it means: it becomes all-consuming; it becomes completely debilitating. That is the state of the Government today.

As I said, the Statement is a précis of the speech made by the Prime Minister in Florence, which, in her own terms, was intended to move the negotiations forward. How does it fare in doing that? It starts by talking about the economic partnership, which is to be “unique and ambitious”. The rest of the section simply sets out what the Government will not do. It says nothing about what the Government intend this to be. This is the first of what one might call “the ball in whose court?” issues. The Government say, “We’re not having this; we’re not having that; we’re not having the other”. The assumption is that somebody will come up with a solution, but not them. Certainly, there is no suggestion in the Statement of what the solution might be.

Ditto the security relationship. The phrase there is that there is to be a partnership that will be,

“unprecedented in its breadth and depth, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development”.

We wait to see what that might mean, but that is it. We then move on to the next phase, implementation. The Government have accepted that there has to be an implementation phase, and there is to be a two-year standstill. The Government should not take any great credit for this. It is impossible to move from our current position in the EU to a new position without an implementation or transition phase. All they have done is accept the inevitable with extraordinary bad grace.

Half way through the Statement, the Prime Minister marks her success in the Florence speech. She says that it was extremely successful and that Michel Barnier said,

“there is a ‘new dynamic’ in the negotiations”.

Well, there is a new dynamic for the Secretary of State—he is staying put. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is not going to Brussels today, and has not been, so all his input, at most, this week as in the past, is going to be some kind of Panglossian statement on Thursday afternoon, when he has just whizzed in, which will be immediately contradicted, no doubt, by Michel Barnier.

The Statement then gets back to the substance, the three big issues, of which Northern Ireland is the first. The Government say that we and the EU,

“have both stated explicitly we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border”.

The problem here is that nobody—not this Government, not the Irish Government, not the EU, not a think tank, not a lawyer, not a company—knows how you can be without the customs union without some kind of border control. There is not a soul on the planet who has come up with a viable proposal for dealing with that, so how can the Government believe that they are making progress there, or that they could get a quick outcome?

We then come to the EU budget, where we want to make a contribution,

“to cover our fair share of the costs involved”.

What does “fair” mean? It is a very interesting word, but the Government give zero indication of what it means. Does the EU have any idea what our view of fair is? If it does, it is certainly something that has not slipped out from anybody in Brussels or in this Government.

We now come to legislation and the two White Papers that have been published today. I have not had a chance to look at them, but I have just one question for the noble Baroness. On customs, we are about to create “an innovative customs system”. It sounds great, but is she aware that, as we speak, HMRC is in the process of reducing regional and local offices so that the ports of East Anglia, Harwich and Felixstowe, are about to be managed from Stratford, in east London? I accept that this is, indeed, innovative, but it does not fill me with any confidence that the Government have even the vaguest idea how they are going to implement a new customs regime.

Finally, we come to the conclusion, which is that, as we look to the next stage,

“the ball is in their court. But I am optimistic it”—

I do not know whether that is the ball—

“will receive a positive response”.

What is “it”? On too many issues there simply is not an “it”: there are simply vacuous statements and pious exhortations. With parliamentary Liberal Democrat colleagues I spent a couple of days in Brussels during the recent Recess attempting to find out what was really happening in the negotiations. We met representatives from the Council and UKREP, other permanent representatives, MEPs and many others. Everybody, with the inevitable exception of UKREP, was at a loss as to what the UK was really after. It was not that they were objecting to what we were after; they simply had no clue. There was no beef, as they saw it, in the negotiations. Today’s Statement, I am afraid, suggests that on current trends they are likely to be kept waiting for this beef for quite a long time.

G20

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, from a number of reports I have read, this seems to have been quite a challenging G20 meeting, but the Prime Minister’s Statement strikes an extremely optimistic note about future trade relationships—she spoke about “exciting opportunities”. It is clear that, for her, our role in the global economy and trade relationships and trade deals following Brexit were high on her agenda.

The Statement refers to the bilateral meetings with America, Japan, India and China. We have had reports of that meeting with President Trump. I understand that the Prime Minister claimed to be “optimistic” that President Trump could be taken at his word regarding a swift trade deal with the UK. Let us remind ourselves of what President Trump said, because, as we know, he never knowingly understates a case:

“There is no country that could possibly be closer than our countries. We have been working on a trade deal which will be a very, very big deal, a very powerful deal, great for both countries and … we will have that done very, very quickly”.


Yet the experienced Canadian negotiator who dealt with the Canada-US trade agreement described that statement as “political puffery”. As well as understanding the complexities of international trade deals, the President would have to consult Congress, which would have to take at least six months to consider the issue. Is that the Prime Minister’s understanding as well? It would be helpful to have some clarity and detail about those discussions, as well as about the timescale that the Prime Minister discussed with the President given his quite emphatic statements. We also need assurances that, in her eagerness to ensure a deal, we do not negotiate away the protections that we have gained—for example, for the environment, for employees and for food safety—that have served this country well.

Many of us may have heard the report a few weeks ago on Radio 4—I think that it was on the “Today” programme—about American poultry farmers who, post Brexit, want to export their chickens and turkeys to the UK. US standards allow chemicals in production that we in this country do not consider safe or appropriate. We have to maintain our high standards, so assurances on that issue would be welcome.

Is the noble Baroness able to provide some more information on the other bilateral discussions with Japan, China and India, which do not seem to have received the same attention? At the last G20 meeting in September, following our bilateral with Japan, the Japanese Prime Minister issued a 15-page document on its specific concerns regarding a trade relationship. When the Japanese returned to the bilateral at this meeting, did they discuss that document and have those concerns been addressed? Last time, the Prime Minister was unable to say whether they had discussed car manufacturing. Is the noble Baroness able to do so today, particularly with reference to any financial assurances that have been given for the post-Brexit era? Also, the Statement referred to a meeting today—not at the G20 but today—and discussions at No. 10 with the Australian Prime Minister. I am not quite sure why that is in the Statement: it does not seem any different from the casual assurances and statements made at last year’s meeting, but seems to be just a repetition of an ambition, at some point in the future, post Brexit, to do a trade deal. Can the noble Baroness tell us what those discussions were today and why that is in the Statement?

Staying with trade issues, the Statement refers to the risks created by the dumping of steel on global markets. One report at the weekend said that UK officials acted as a go-between during the disagreement between the US and China over the alleged overproduction of steel. The Statement refers to calls to remove excess capacity in steel from global markets. The noble Baroness may recall that the steel industry in this country was desperate for the Government to back European intervention to protect our steel industry from being destroyed by imported steel, yet the UK Government at that time refused to act. Therefore, I am curious now about the role the UK played as a so-called go-between. Can she enlighten us on that?

On economic issues, the declaration raises a number of matters under the heading “Building Resilience”. Mark Carney, who is also the chair of the G20 financial stability board, has warned about the continued economic risks to the UK banking sector. While the UK’s financial stability remains resilient, there are a number of worrying trends; specifically, the increase in consumer credit, which at more than 10% is outstripping household income. The ratio of household debt to income is high by historic standards. Is this the case across the G20, and was this considered at the summit?

On counterterrorism, which was the first issue the Prime Minister raised in her Statement, the noble Baroness will be aware that I have returned to this issue many times to express concerns about how our leaving the EU improves our serious and organised crime and counterterrorism operations and investigations. Obviously, we welcome any successful co-operation on counterterrorism, including tackling the funding of extremism. In the Statement the Prime Minister says that:

“The UK is leading the way”.


Does she understand and recognise that part of leading the way is through the co-operative work we lead and are part of within the EU? What consideration has been given to post-Brexit negotiations on this issue? Given that the Statement refers to tackling the funding of such activities as being key—the noble Baroness will be aware that this issue has also been raised many times in your Lordships’ House—when will the Government release the report into the foreign funding of extremism and radicalism in the UK?

Before she met President Trump the Prime Minister said she would raise with him his personal attacks on Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London. The President’s attacks on the mayor on Twitter were extraordinary. What the mayor said, in reassuring people after the horrific terrorist incident in London, was “You have no need to be alarmed about additional police and armed police on our streets; they are there for your safety”. This was a perfectly reasonable and responsible comment to make. The President attacked him constantly on this on Twitter and the Prime Minister said that she would raise that directly with the President. Did she do so? The Observer newspaper reported that she failed to do it. If that is true, and given that she said she would, can the Minister assure us that she is seeking another opportunity to do so? The mayor was speaking and acting for Londoners at a difficult time and should not be attacked for doing so by a foreign leader.

Finally, my favourite film is “Casablanca”. Bear with me—it might not seem relevant but I am getting there. One of my favourite scenes, and the saddest, has Rick saying goodbye to Ilsa at the airport as she leaves with her husband to continue their work trying to save France from the Nazis. Rick tells her not to worry, saying, “We’ll always have Paris”. When the Paris agreement on climate change was signed last year, to great acclaim, I am sure that I was not the only who thought of that scene. To protect the world from climate change, we’ll always have Paris. But will we? Nineteen of the 20 countries remain committed. But President Trump’s rejection is a bitter blow. In the Statement, the Prime Minister said that she raised this personally with President Trump but I understand that she did not raise it in the bilateral, which was the appropriate and proper place to do so. So how and when did she raise it? I hope it was not an informal chat over a cup of tea later on. It is all very well being “dismayed”, as the Prime Minister said in the Statement, but if our close relationship with President Trump is to be meaningful, it has to be two-way and it has to have an honesty about it. If she did not discuss it with the President in that informal meeting, did she talk to, support or advise President Macron in any way, and thank him for taking a lead on this issue? What are the implications of the US rejection of the agreement?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. “Casablanca” is also one of my favourite films. I think the line that the Prime Minister takes from it is, “Play it again”, because the use of exceptionalist phraseology is played again and again in prime ministerial responses to this kind of international gathering.

I suspect that this summit will not be remembered for any great new international agreements, for there were none. But it is possible that historians will look back on it as marking the end of US primacy in world affairs and the point at which the US accepted tacitly the Russian strategy of regional hegemony, to which there was no opposition, as far as one could see, in the long meeting between President Trump and President Putin. I suspect that at the end of those two hours it was President Putin who was smiling behind his hand, rather than his opposite number. The change in the balance of power in the world was evidenced by the summit’s communiqué, which made no attempt whatever to hide the differences between the US and the rest of the world on climate change. I was intrigued when the Prime Minister said that she urged President Trump to rejoin the Paris agreement and that she hopes that he will do so. Has she any reason to believe that this is even a slim possibility?

Many of the issues debated at the summit were worthy and important and it is a great sign of progress that we have the 20 most important countries in the world discussing issues in a constructive manner, whether it is security, migration, modern slavery or women’s empowerment. Modest baby steps forward were taken on all those issues. However, listening to the Statement, one cannot but be struck by the lack of progress on—or even mention of—some of world’s flashpoints; for example, there is nothing about the Middle East or North Korea. Clearly, this is to be regretted.

On our own domestic agenda, the summit did discuss trade, where again the US is in danger of taking a unilateral line which would weaken the world trading system. But clearly the key trade issues for the UK relate to Brexit. The Prime Minister met the leaders of America, Japan, China and India, all of whom, we are told, expressed an interest in having new bilateral trading relationships with Britain post-Brexit. The situation in respect of Japan is particularly concerning. Japan has just signed a deal with the EU which covers 19% of all world trade. It took four years to negotiate and along with the traditional tariff reductions, there are major new levels of co-operation on standards, regulation and opening up public procurement markets. What is rather chilling is the thought expressed by a leading commentator in today’s papers that unless the UK replicates the EU’s trade agreement with Japan, Japan will have a closer trading relationship with the EU than we will. Even if we replicate it, there is a major challenge to the British motor industry if we are not inside the customs union. First, Japanese direct investment is likely to go to the EU, and, secondly, rules of origin mean that unless 50% of a product is made in the country, it does not qualify for free entry into the other country. How many motor cars made in the UK have 50% of their parts made in the UK? Very few. I wonder how the Government hope and expect to be able to, at worst, replicate the trade agreement now entered into or coming into force between Japan and the EU.

As far as America is concerned, the Prime Minister seems to take President Trump at his word when he says we are going to have a terrific, new, quick trade agreement. She is the only person in the world to do so. The rest of the world just does not think it is doable. Even if were doable, it is very noticeable that the EEF has said today that the damage caused by the kind of Brexit being pursued by the Government would not be made up any potential trade deal with the US. Equally, this very weekend we had the head of the German industrial federation saying that, as far as he and Germany are concerned, trade with Britain will be second to protecting the single market and the four freedoms. So how do the Government think they are going to be able to protect trade in a situation where they are not prepared to contemplate the single market or the customs union at a time when, as the ONS pointed out this very day, some 2 million people working in Britain today owe their jobs to direct investment from the EU? That investment is jeopardised by the Government’s stance.

This was an eminently forgettable summit for the UK. The major challenges to our well-being, whether in terms of the economy, security or influence, stem from Brexit, and here the Prime Minister certainly has a lot of work to do.

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The European Council focused on work being undertaken across the EU to protect its citizens in counterterrorism, security and defence, external borders and illegal migration, and economic development. These are clearly issues on which co-operation at the highest levels is essential and a key priority for the EU. It must be hard for the Prime Minister at such Council meetings, because although on those specific issues our priorities are shared, this country’s priority is not how EU members tackle those together in the future. A quick glance at the Government’s programme in the Queen’s Speech shows that they are going to be preoccupied with Brexit throughout this Session, so I am a bit curious about the Prime Minister’s role at these summits. Our joint work across the EU, on which the UK has taken a lead, on tackling serious and organised crime, including terrorism, is essential. We share common goals, and in order to be effective we must have joint responsibility. However, as the EU discusses future work, it is our priority—and this will take the attention of our Prime Minister—not to be part of that work.

Given the seriousness of those issues, what was the Prime Minister able to say to the Council meeting on both defence and security about the UK response and responsibilities? Specifically, did she take part in discussions on the improvements of the European travel and authorisation system to enhance external border controls? Will that be taken into account in discussions about how to manage the border with Ireland to ensure that there are no changes from the current position? At the weekend, in a TV interview that others may have seen, the Brexit Secretary made some suggestions about how that could be managed. I have to say that he sounded unconvincing, even to himself. He should understand the need for clarity on this issue as soon as possible, but instead he spoke about issues such as monitors on cars and number plate recognition. The Irish border is not like the Dartford tunnel. This has to be resolved as a matter of urgency.

I want to pick up the issue of digital Europe. Is it not something of an irony that while the European Council was discussing an overarching approach to digital issues, including cybersecurity, our own parliamentary network was under sustained attack? I think the whole House will want to thank all our staff who have sought to resolve the problem and assist colleagues. Given that the digital economy knows no physical boundaries, and that UK exports of services are an important growth area of our economy, I would be interested to know what contributions the Prime Minister was able to make on this specific issue.

There was considerable discussion at the Council of the single market and trade, recognising the benefits and addressing areas where improvements are needed. One of the issues discussed was the European Fund for Strategic Investments. In the Council’s conclusions there is a call for rapid agreement on the extension and reinforcement of that fund.

That fund has provided £184 million for the northern powerhouse investment fund. I know that the noble Baroness and the Prime Minister have previously been clear that we are in until we are out and that we remain a full and functioning member of the EU until Brexit negotiations are concluded. Given the importance of that particular investment, can the noble Baroness assure us that no part of it will be lost to Brexit, and what advice would she give regarding further applications to the fund from the UK?

Turning to EU agencies, the background note stated that the EU 27 were to agree the procedure regarding the relocation of the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority from the UK as a consequence of Brexit. There are several issues to be addressed. I understand why the EU has pushed the decision on relocation back to November, but for the UK these issues are live and need to be addressed now. I understand that more than 1,000 staff are employed in those two agencies. Can the noble Baroness confirm that? Do the Government know how many UK staff are employed by other EU agencies and the status of their position?

Outside the EU, we will need mechanisms, organisations or quangos to undertake the functions of those bodies and the other EU agencies of which we will no longer be part. We are all aware of the significant public safety issues that can arise and the economic implications that flow from effective regulation. Has any estimate been made of the cost involved in establishing new structures or agencies, what form they will take and how long it will be before we set them up? If we look at the European Medicines Agency alone and the importance of pharmaceuticals to public health and the economy, surely the Government must have a plan in place to address those issues. I think particularly of pharmaceutical companies, which currently invest significant amounts in research and development here in the UK because they want access to those European markets. Can the noble Baroness share the Government’s initial thinking on this issue with us?

Finally, we come to the point about certainty for EU and UK nationals. From the background notes to the Council meeting, it is clear that there was a short space at the end of the dinner on Thursday and before the session for the rest of the EU members on Brexit where the PM had the opportunity to “inform the leaders” about Brexit negotiations. As predicted, this issue has caused tensions. I have not yet had time, as I am sure other noble Lords have not, to digest all the implications of the new documents, but others across the EU apparently do not share the PM’s confidence that there was a “very positive” response. Reading the comments of other leaders, I would describe them as being underwhelmed but clearly open to further discussion.

I have had a brief look at the document. It seems quite complicated, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reading out some of the details. It seems that the Government have now come round to the idea of an identity card, although I am not clear exactly how it will work when the only people who will carry them are EU nationals residing in the UK. The noble Baroness talked about a light-touch approach, but it seems grossly inefficient and disrespectful that 180,000 people who have applied for permanent residency will now have to apply again under the new system. Surely there is a better way to resolve that for those people.

I also understand that under the new arrangements there will have to be an assessment of conduct and criminality. Is the noble Baroness sure that all those can be undertaken within the two years between now and the exit from the EU? If some of them will be undertaken later, what guarantees have been made about access to EU databases so that the accuracy of that information can be checked?

We are talking about citizens from the other 27 EU countries living in the UK whose rights we seek to protect. There are also UK citizens living across the other 27 countries, many of whom have reacted with dismay to the Prime Minister’s comments. But there is also a third group. There are about 60 million UK citizens living here in the UK who will also have their rights affected. All these discussions focus on the rights of those who are already established here in the UK, or on UK citizens already living and working in one of the other 27 countries. But the future impact on UK citizens who want to travel, live and work abroad must also be addressed. Will they need visas? Will they need work permits? The Select Committee report on acquired rights is very helpful on some of these issues.

When your Lordships’ House agreed to the amendments on the Article 50 Bill, by a majority of 102, to protect the rights of EU citizens, it was not because we were being difficult or, as some claimed, trying to oppose Brexit. It was precisely because we recognised, as did the Select Committee report, that this is a difficult issue, and resolving it in a simple and straightforward way would not only give certainty but would ensure negotiations to proceed on key issues in a better tone and a better atmosphere.

The Government worked hard to make sure that that amendment was not agreed by the House of Commons. There were meetings at Downing Street and promises were made that this would be resolved quickly as an early priority, all in pursuit of a so-called clean Bill. I have to say that I wonder whether this House would vote the same way on that amendment.

As we have heard, nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed, so meanwhile there is a twilight zone of uncertainty for many. That is already having an impact. We have heard from the Nursing and Midwifery Council that there has been a 96% reduction in the number of nurses from the EU registering to work in the UK since the referendum. How many of our citizens have lost out on work in the EU?

The new editor of the Evening Standard said that all Cabinet Ministers backed David Cameron in wanting to address this issue immediately after the referendum result, but the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, held out against it. Perhaps the EU’s proposal should have been used as a starting point for the Prime Minister to try to resolve these issues.

Finally, I appreciate that these issues are difficult for the Prime Minister. I was struck by President Tusk’s comments at the end of the Council meeting. He said:

“Brexit took up very little time at this European Council. We devoted most of our work to addressing people’s concerns over security, illegal migration and uncontrolled globalisation”.


These are the concerns of citizens everywhere, and a challenge for the Prime Minister is to make sure that these issues, plus jobs and the economy, remain at the top of our agenda for the UK while she negotiates Brexit.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The two principal issues debated at the Council that are of relevance to the UK were, first, security and, secondly, citizens’ rights.

On security, the Prime Minister rather patted herself on the back that she had taken the lead in having had discussions with President Macron and then, at the Council itself, in moving the technology companies to responding more effectively to extremist content. It is clear that whatever happens over the coming months in respect of the technology companies, the area of security, which faces the whole of Europe, will not become less of a priority or less of a concern. My question for the Government is: what plans do they have to have a continuing voice on European discussions on security? They will not be at the EU table. Will they put proposals to the EU about how they will have a continuing voice in European security discussions? If we lose that voice it will undoubtedly be the case that the UK will be less secure.

The biggest area of interest for the UK, not so much in the summit but subsequently, is around citizens’ rights. We have now seen the Government’s paper. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, when your Lordships’ House debated this issue four months ago, it took the view that the UK should unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK. We on these Benches continue to believe that the Government should unilaterally guarantee EU nationals the right to stay in the UK now. It is to be regretted that it has taken so long for the Government to attempt to provide any certainty about their future status. The very fact that the Government have today announced a series of issues and proposals that are dependent on reciprocal decisions by the EU means that there is still no certainty or clarity for EU citizens living in this country.

I turn to some of the specific proposals in the Government’s document today. First, there is still no specified cut-off date. Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government have left that open and, in doing so, extended the uncertainty of people who are thinking about whether they might come from the EU to the UK at some point over the next couple of years, when they could have made a decision to specify the date today? At what point and by what process do the Government plan to announce a cut-off date?

Secondly, it is not clear how long the application process for residence status will take. We know about the huge backlogs in dealing with such questions at the moment. Do the Government plan to resource the relevant agencies properly so that applications, albeit in their cut-down form, can be dealt with speedily? What assessment have the Government made of how many EU citizens currently resident in the UK will need to apply for the new residence status?

The Government talk about avoiding a cliff edge at the point at which EU citizens cease to be able to settle freely in the UK, and propose a two-year period during which there will be a generic umbrella of temporary leave to remain. Do the two years apply to the period during which EU citizens must apply for residence status, or do the Government envisage that we will have processed all requests for residence status within the two years—and, indeed, that everybody wishing to achieve that status will need to have achieved it by the end of the two-year period?

The document states:

“Obtaining settled status will be subject to meeting certain requirements. The eligibility criteria will be set out in UK law”.


Could the Leader of the House give some further idea of what sort of requirements are envisaged? Will the UK law referred to be in primary or secondary legislation? Is this what is envisaged to be covered in the new immigration Bill and, if so, when do the Government plan to publish that Bill?

Finally, to take up another point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, today’s documents states that:

“Obtaining documentation showing their settled status will enable EU citizens resident here to carry on living here lawfully”.


But it then states about that documentation:

“The Home Office may also need to capture evidence of EU citizens’ biometric information during the application process”.


That raises concerns that what is being proposed is ID cards just for EU nationals with settled status. Can the Government guarantee that this new status will not require EU nationals who receive it to carry documentation signalling their status and this will not amount to an ID card? If there were to be some kind of ID card, could the Leader of the House set out how much the Government would expect such a policy might cost and how they might expect it to work—particularly given that it would result in only a small minority of those living in the UK being required to carry such cards?

This Statement and the policy paper begin to answer the many questions that EU citizens have about their future status in the UK, but it leaves many unanswered. The Government need to answer those questions quickly to bring about the certainty that they claim to seek.

Grenfell Tower

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this very comprehensive Statement, with lots of information in there. She will understand that it also begs a number of questions, and I hope that she will be able to answer them today—but, if she is not, I shall be happy for her to write to me.

First, it is right that we recognise the almost unspeakable horror of the fire in which so many have lost lives, friends, family, their homes and all their possessions; it is a tragedy on an almost unimaginable scale. If you listen to those who are affected, it is clear that it is never going to leave them; it will stay with them for the rest of their lives. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that the support is not just for today or tomorrow—it is long-term support that we are talking about.

I also place on record our huge gratitude to the emergency services—the medical staff, police and, particularly, the fire and rescue services, which went above and beyond the call of duty. I understand from those who have seen and heard the recordings from the fire engines when they arrived at the fire, they could not believe what they were going to. They were saying, “How in the something or other are we ever going to get into that building to rescue people?”. Those were the comments that they were making as they arrived. There was no structural engineer on site at that point, so they had no way of knowing whether it was safe to go into that building or not—but they went in. Many years ago, I did some fire service training as a fire authority member, and I have done a mock-up wearing breathing apparatus. That was in safe conditions, but I know something of how terrifying it must be for those who arrive at such a scene, and the bravery of those men and women who attended the fire. No words can express how grateful we and others are to them.

The response from the local community and the public was almost overwhelming, such was the scale of the horror of what they witnessed. However, as the noble Baroness has said, the response from the local council was nothing short of appalling and a disaster. I pay tribute to the other London boroughs which do not have the wealth or resources or the financial reserves of Kensington and Chelsea but which went to the aid and assistance of people outside their borough to do what they could to help—and they seemed better able to provide some of the support that was needed. The noble Baroness made the point that the council was certainly not up to responding to residents’ needs.

I welcome the inquiry, which is a step forward. The noble Baroness is right to say that there should be an interim report—one hopes by the summer—but, as well as the other issues that it addresses, can it address the wider issues of accountability? The management of that block was outsourced to a private company, which does not seem—and this will be borne out by the inquiry—to have had any direct relationship with the residents so that the residents could force it to respond or have any accountability process. That should be looked at as part of the wider issues.

I note in the Queen’s Speech that the Government have taken up the proposal from my noble friend Lord Wills of a public advocate. It would seem that the quicker we can have somebody in place to advise those who want to play a role and be involved in the inquiry, the better. I hope that we can look at that ASAP.

Clearly, this is a fast-moving situation, with new information and details emerging all the time. I appreciate that government and local councils want to reassure people, but we can reassure people only if they are genuinely safe; people cannot be reassured unless the necessary checks have been undertaken and any changes have been made so that people are safe. Shortly after the Prime Minister gave her Statement to the House of Commons, we heard the alarming news that, when in the Statement today she mentioned that a “number” of high-rise tower blocks were affected, up to 600 in England alone could have combustible cladding installed. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the figure of around 600 is correct? If it is, when did that figure become known to the Government? What action are the Government taking? If there are 600 blocks of flats in England alone in that situation, the scale of the work to be done is just enormous. The Downing Street spokeswoman said earlier today that:

“Obviously nobody will be living in buildings that are unsafe. They will be rehoused if they need to be and landlords will be asked to provide alternative accommodation where that’s possible”.


If 600 blocks are affected, I am not sure that the checks can done as quickly as that. If 100 blocks can be checked today, it will still be quite a long time before all blocks are checked and any work is undertaken. If those people are to be rehoused, it will be more than a million people. There must be some contingency plans for the Government to work with local councils on that, because this clearly seems to be beyond the scale of most local authorities’ ability to cope. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether that figure is correct, when the Government knew and what action is being taken?

I have a couple of questions on resources for local authorities. This is clearly going to be an expensive business—rightly so—for local authorities to undertake properly, so are local authorities guaranteed the resources to carry out any necessary additional checks? What conversations or discussions have there been between central government and the private companies that have supplied and fitted such cladding on to high-rise blocks? There is an issue about whether all housing providers have been alerted by those companies that fitted such cladding. The inquiry is welcome, but the noble Baroness is right to say that we do not have to wait to take action. After the previous fire that we saw in 2009, I gather that the coroner’s recommendations were made in 2013 to the Department for Communities and Local Government about retrofitting sprinklers—those recommendations could be acted on now. We would be grateful if the noble Baroness could respond on that.

When the Prime Minister was asked in the House of Commons about whether the buildings were compliant with building regulations, she said that the police and fire services were investigating and would report in 24 hours. That is a reasonable response in terms of the buildings that we are talking about, but the legal position regarding that kind of cladding on high-rise buildings is not a matter for the fire and rescue service or the police to investigate; the Government must know whether or not the building regulations allow it. Can the noble Baroness respond immediately on that? I cannot see why we have to wait 24 hours for a statement from the fire and rescue services, because whether the building regulations do or do not allow it should be a matter of fact. In terms of this particular block, there were building regulations inspections. Were faults found during those inspections and, if they were, was action taken to remedy the faults? It is clear that there were complaints beforehand.

I have one final point: a Minister commented to me a while ago regarding deregulation that the Government’s policy was that you had to have three regulations out before you could bring another one in. We all know that society does not like to be overregulated—nobody wants unnecessary red tape—but that seems to not look at the value of regulation; it is a numerical chance exercise. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether that is the case? I would be delighted if it was not, but if that is still government policy, surely it should be reviewed. We should regard regulations on their merit, not on the number of regulations, which is completely irrelevant in terms of safety for society.

The Statement is comprehensive and welcome. As times goes on, there will be some challenging, difficult and perhaps uncomfortable truths to be faced about how society operates and how it treats poorer people, particularly with regard to housing. This is a disaster beyond anything we could have ever contemplated. If lessons are not learned from this, we will be doing the public an enormous disservice.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the extremely comprehensive Statement. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who lost their lives in the tragedy; our sympathies are, of course, with all those residents who will have to rebuild their lives after such a horrific event and with the families of those affected. I also put on record again the huge debt of gratitude that we owe to those in the fire service and all the emergency services who worked tirelessly to rescue residents and support families in the immediate circumstances of the fire, and in the almost as bad circumstances of having to sift through the building day after day to see what they could find in the wreckage.

There was a huge gulf in the response to this tragedy between the public and the Government. The public acted immediately and with great generosity. Government, both national and local, acted slowly and, initially at least, without the same energy or generosity. It took the Government 48 hours to establish a central command centre, for example, and the borough council seemed unprepared and overwhelmed. If this had been a terrorist attack, the response would have been far more effective—we saw that in London only a few days ago. Things that have, for example, taken 48 hours in this case, would, in the case of a terrorist attack, be in place within 48 minutes. There was clearly a failure of emergency planning for this kind of incident, which we do not see for terrorist attacks, for which emergency planning is clearly extremely good. So I ask the Government: what immediate steps are being taken to ensure that such a failure will not be replicated in any future non-terrorist incident?

The Government say that they welcome—and indeed precipitated—the resignation of the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea council. But what about the leader of the council? It was a political decision to stockpile huge cash reserves while apparently skimping on safety measures. Will the Government now be asking him to resign also?

We welcome the public inquiry that has been announced by the Prime Minister. We must obviously ask a raft of difficult questions, including why the fire spread so quickly and why the lessons of the past seem not to have been learned, but there are obvious concerns about how long such an inquiry might last. History is not very encouraging in this respect. Can the Leader of the House give any further assurances in terms of both the speed with which any interim recommendations might be produced and how we can ensure that the full inquiry does not drag on for years?

The Statement says that a number of tests already carried out have shown other blocks to be clad in combustible materials, and the Government claim that all local authorities and fire services are now taking all possible steps to ensure buildings are safe. Given that some—indeed many—of these steps will be costly, can the Government give an assurance today that they will not be delayed by any shortage of funding? In the case of such buildings which are privately owned, what steps beyond exhortation will the Government take to ensure that the owners fulfil their legal obligations to provide safe buildings?

It is clear that, when the tests on all these buildings are complete, there will be a need for large-scale remedial action. If there are 600 blocks, there will be a vast amount of work that needs doing quickly. This can be undertaken only by skilled workers in the construction sector. Given that there is already a shortage of such skills, particularly in London, and that 50% of the construction workforce in London is from the EU, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that, as the Brexit talks proceed, every encouragement will be given to such workers to continue to come to London, as any major labour shortage in this area could be literally a matter of life and death?

There are a number of issues in the Statement that could legitimately give rise to anger. But what got to me was the Prime Minister’s peroration. She said:

“It should not take a disaster of this kind for us to remember that there are people in Britain today living lives that are so far removed from those that many here in Westminster enjoy”;


and she went on,

“let the legacy of this awful tragedy be that we resolve never to forget these people and instead to gear our policies and our thinking towards making their lives better and bringing them into the political process. It is our job as a Government … to show we are listening and that we will stand up for them”.

This is a leader of a party who has just stood on an election manifesto to cut spending in schools by 7% and impose big further cuts in welfare payments and local government expenditure. This hypocrisy makes me very angry. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House suggest to the Prime Minister that if she really wishes to stand up for people such as the tenants of Grenfell Tower, she should start to adopt policies which follow her words?