European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon Excerpts

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

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

I am content to be misquoted by the noble Lord and I am content to be able to intervene, not least because my words have been used in the past. I shall make an intervention later in which I shall clarify the position.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

We look forward to that clarification. If we wanted to, we could quote many other Liberals, not least Mr Vince Cable, who I am sorry is not in this House. He made it clear that he thought that there should be no second referendum:

“The public have voted and I do think it’s seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive to say: ‘Sorry guys, you’ve got it wrong, we’re going to try again’, I don’t think we can do that”.


My noble friend Lord Cormack made the point that there is also the assumption that the EU definitely wants us to remain in. There is also the assumption behind the amendment that Article 50 is reversible. As I understand the position, this is legally an open question. The Supreme Court did not opine on it because the two parties to the case, Mrs Miller and the Government, agreed that they would not argue about the issue in front of the court, so it did not take a view. I understand that lawyers are divided on the matter, but it is by no means clear that Article 50, once it has been invoked, is reversible.

Regardless of what the legal argument is, politically it seems difficult to believe that Article 50 could be reversed. Would the EU really want to negotiate with a country that is saying, “Well, we will get some terms from you which we will put back to the people, and then we may come back and ask for a better set of terms if they are not satisfactory”? If my noble friend Lord Cormack and I are wrong about this and the EU definitely and 100% wants us to remain in, it will give us the worst possible bargain, knowing that it has to be endorsed by both Parliament and a referendum. The amendment that has been proposed seems to be opportunistic and it does not have any logic to it at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, set out the case pretty well. I do not want to go over that ground again about a second referendum. However, I am a strong believer in the sentiment that those who giveth can also taketh away. It seems that that is an underlying principle: if the people have spoken but they are given new information, they can change their views at the end of the process.

I will say a bit about why I put my name on this amendment because the reason is a theme that will keep coming up on some of the other amendments. It will certainly come up on Amendment 8, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Oates. Do we actually trust the Government to conduct these negotiations unsupervised after what we have seen of their behaviour so far? We are entitled to be fairly sceptical. We also have no reason to believe, if I may say so, that in Whitehall—and I speak as an old Whitehall warrior—there is this crack team of negotiators who we are going to send across the English Channel and who are going to do a fantastic job without any involvement in Parliament. We have no reason to believe that they will come up with a solution at the end of this process and we will all sit here and nod very sagely and say, “Fantastic. You have hit every particular button”. The world, on the whole, does not work that way.

We all have views about how to conduct negotiations. Many noble Lords have had a go at conducting such negotiations, and we will all have our own approach. Sometimes I have actually thought it quite useful in negotiations not to have too much flexibility—that I have got a mission that I want to deliver. It is quite good to be able to shelter behind that kind of instruction about the way in which I conduct the negotiations. As a former senior civil servant, I certainly did not want a lot of Ministers telling me to go out there and do my best. I would like to have a bit of guidance. I would have thought the same applies to Ministers. I have been a Minister and wanted to know what the Government and public were likely to accept while I did those negotiations. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in principle with the approaches in the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, knows as well as I do—he has been a Chief Whip—that it is often the case in Committee that we put down an amendment that may be technically a bit defective. We are trying to have a debate about a principle or an issue and we often withdraw them and come back at a later stage in the Bill with a rectified amendment that meets the concerns expressed. That does not mean it is wrong in principle to put these issues before the House and see what people’s views are. I support the amendment. We should think very seriously, as we discuss further amendments to the Bill, about whether we really believe that it is safe to send the Government into these negotiations without any requirements about the involvement of Parliament with that process.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has made the central case for the amendment: do noble Lords trust the Government and the way that they have used the vote on the Brexit referendum or not? Frankly, we do not, for very good reasons that I shall seek to explain in a moment. That is not to say that we challenge the fundamental decision made in that referendum. Since I have been substantially misquoted on many occasions, let me say what I said on the night of the referendum, because government Ministers have been frequently using this as though somehow or other we had behaved in a way inconsistent with these words:

“I will forgive no-one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken. Whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%, when the British people have spoken, you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t”.


Those are my words and I stand by them because we do believe in democracy on these Benches. We accept the sovereign voice of the British people.

Noble Lords may laugh but that is the fundamental question: do we challenge the “yes” or “no” outcome of that referendum? No, we do not, and this amendment does not in any way. We accept the decision that has been taken, and the decision is that we should leave. We are naturally bitter and sad about that, but whatever our personal feelings the judgment of the British people has spoken. However, to say we leave is not the same as the British people providing a mandate unto the solution that the Government choose in order to leave. The Government have actually taken what they claim to be a mandate to leave—which we concede the Government have, of course—and turned it into a mandate for the most brutal form of leaving possible.

I ask noble Lords to look back to the conduct of that referendum, in which many of us took part. I had a number of interesting debates with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and very good they were too. On every single occasion during that referendum, we asked those who proposed Brexit to say what kind of Brexit. Did it mean leaving the single market? Did it mean a complete ban on immigration? Never were we given an answer. I have Mr Hannan, a well-known lion on the Brexit debate, on the record many times: there is nothing about this that says we must leave the single market. If I recall, in the meeting that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—I do not think I am wrong—he too said that it was not necessary to leave the single market.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

What I said, as the noble Lord will recall, was that there was a difference between being a member of the single market and having access to the single market and that those who were arguing for remain were deliberately deceiving the people.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

As I recall, the conclusion that I and the audience reached—but we probably cannot go over this now—was that the noble Lord would leave but it was not necessary not to continue with access to the single market. However, that is what the Government have now said. We accept that the Government have a mandate to leave the European Union, but what mandate do they have to leave the single market or the customs union? None. The Conservative Party manifesto at the last general election committed the party, as a manifesto promise, to continue to stay in the single market. They have taken the British people’s votes—

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

Would the noble Lord please correct what he said about the Conservative manifesto saying we would stay in the single market? That was in the context of the negotiation that the Prime Minister promised to undertake, and was on the assumption that, as he wanted, people would say “yes” to remain. If the referendum went the other way, it was made perfectly clear that the single market would no longer encompass Britain.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

The noble Lord could have been much quicker if he said, “Yes but we just changed our minds”—which is exactly what the Government have now done. The Government have a mandate to leave but they have no mandate whatever for this brutal form of leaving that will damage this country. By the way, it is not us that has been undemocratic but the Government. They have taken the British people’s vote and hijacked it for their anti-European prejudices. That is why now they need a referendum on the outcome—not a second referendum on “in or out” but a referendum on the deal. Noble Lords and the House will know the enormous difference between the hard Brexit that the Government propose, with no access to the single market and no membership of the customs union, and a Brexit maintaining access to the single market. The difference between these two options is huge for the people of this country, for our influence in Europe and the wider world, and for jobs, industry and our economy. Maybe the Government have got it right in their judgment—their guesswork—that the British people are content to leave the single market, but let them test that. They have no mandate from the referendum outcome whatever for that solution.

[Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)]

Surely the most brutal form of leaving would be to leave with no deal at all. The problem with this amendment is that it does not say, “We should have another referendum on whether we stay or leave”. It says, “We should have a referendum on whether we accept the terms of the deal”. If we say we do not accept those terms, that does not mean we stay in the European Union. Article 50 is very clear about that. Be careful what you wish for.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I am grateful that the noble Lord led me on to that because I was coming to it next. The Government say that this is the deal they will do. It will be the hardest possible deal with no access to the single market and huge damage done to our industry, jobs and influence. If they cannot get that, the alternative is to tow this country out into the middle of the Atlantic as some kind of mid-Atlantic Singapore: a total free market with no regulations at all. The Foreign Secretary has been very clear about that outcome. The difference between these two things is basically asking the people of this country and our Parliament to either say “yes” or jump over a cliff. That is not a reasonable option to put. When the High Court said that Parliament should have a say, it meant a real say, not an option between “take it” or “leave it”. That is not the kind of solution that will produce the best outcome for this country. Our proposition is simple. We accept the case that has been made and the judgment of the British people that we must leave. We do not accept that the Government have a mandate for a brutal form of Brexit that will damage our country’s influence and economy. They have no mandate whatever to take this country out of the single market. If they want to test that proposition, let them do so before a court of the British people.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if we can get back to the amendment—I thought for a moment we had segued into the next debate—it is on a second referendum or ratification that I think initially sounded quite attractive to a number of noble Lords. However, when you actually look at the amendment it is flawed.

First, there is the point made about the two parts of the amendment. Paragraph (a), which says that it must be,

“laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”,

fails to recognise the primacy of the other place. That is not how we have handled this Bill or other issues. On that point, our later amendment on a meaningful vote is a better way to judge parliamentary opinion and for Parliament to deal with this issue.

Demands for a second referendum started even before the polls closed on the first one. An online parliamentary petition called for a second referendum should the first have less than a 60% vote for either remain or leave on a 75% turnout threshold. That set a high bar and it received around 4 million signatures. We do not require that level of support for Governments; the last time we had a turnout of higher than 75% was back in 1992, nearly 25 years ago. This amendment does not seek such conditions. I agree that it would be strange to set new and different conditions for a second referendum from the first one but the point has been made previously in debates that for such a major constitutional issue to be decided by a simple majority has caused concern.

National referendums are rare in the UK. As we know, there have been three UK-wide ones. In 1975, Harold Wilson called a referendum on remaining in or leaving the European Economic Community. In 2011, during the coalition Government, we had a referendum on whether to change first past the post to the AV voting system. Then we had the EU referendum in 2016. I must confess that I am naturally cautious about politicians demanding a national referendum on an issue. If I was a cynic—of course, I am not—I would suggest that we do that rarely on a point of principle but more often because we think it will endorse a position we take and give us the result we want. However, I feel differently when there is public demand for a referendum. I accept that it is not always easy to judge that. Certain petitions and polls are not satisfactory. Yet it becomes clear over time and the polls for the EU referendum were evidenced by the turnout.

Let us look at the public support for these referendums. In the EEC referendum in 1975, 64% voted. That was probably depressed by most people thinking that it was clear the UK would remain. Some 72% voted in the referendum in 2016. Yet when we had the referendum on the voting system, for which there was no real public demand as it was politician-led, it motivated fewer than half our fellow citizens, with a turnout of just 42%. My fear now is that, with no significant public demand for a second referendum at this time, this is being seen as a campaign to challenge the result of the first referendum. That in itself creates a mood of opposition and hostility from the public.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, reinforced that view in his speech, but in the The House magazine he said it was “implausible” not to grant a second referendum if public opinion shifts in favour of the EU. What if it shifts away and more people are opposed to the EU? Is that still grounds for a second referendum? Not according to his article. Indeed, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, spoke of having a second referendum so people could express a change of mind. That is not solely a reason to have one.

As the previous debate illustrated clearly, the coming months of negotiations will be complicated and complex. We are pressing the Government to ensure that Parliament is kept fully engaged and informed throughout the whole process, and that Parliament has the opportunity for a real, meaningful final say on the exit arrangements or deals. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made a good point on this when he said that the Government did not want to engage with Parliament through a vote and had to be persuaded to do so by a court judgment. However, Parliament will now have to make its judgment and the MPs who do so will be accountable to their constituents. That is what parliamentary sovereignty means: taking responsibility.

I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that his logic is flawed because he and others from his party feel no need to respect the result of the referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, just refuted this but I find that hard to accept. I do not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, call the result the will of the people. I am not sure that referendums express that. However, there is a clear result. The noble Lord’s party said that there is no need to respect that result and voted against it in the House of Commons. It is now calling for a second referendum. Is that to be the same, to be seen as advisory, or do we just accept what a second referendum says? I find it hard to see the circumstances in which a second referendum could deal with all of the detail that would be required on the terms of an exit deal and not just be a rerun on the principle of continuing the process to leave or staying in. That is, in effect, the same as the first one.

The final judgment on the exit deal has to be very measured. It is going to involve forensic detail and it cannot just be an appeal to the emotions without hard, actual facts. In the first referendum, we saw different sides campaigning; they lobbied around the principle of staying in or leaving. I am on record as saying that I was deeply unimpressed with both the remain and leave campaigns. I have not yet been convinced that the approach of a referendum works well when dealing with the detail of negotiations over a period of two years. We have to have some faith in our Members of Parliament and in your Lordships’ House to make a serious, factual judgment on the benefits or otherwise of a final deal. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who asked whether we trusted the Government. I have been clear that I do not trust the Government enough to wave them off for two years and come back, and that is why we have later amendments about parliamentary engagement and votes. However, there is no impediment: if, as time and negotiations progress, there is genuine evidence of a widespread public demand for a second referendum, that should be listened to, but at this stage, our priority has to be that Parliament has the final say.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, the House will be delighted to hear that I intend to speak briefly on this amendment, as I get the sense that many of your Lordships’ minds have already been made up on this issue. I am going to explain why the Government believe that this approach would be wrong in principle and wrong in practice. A number of your Lordships have already made a number of good points, which I will not repeat.

I begin by taking a step back to consider people’s trust in politics today. It is at a somewhat low ebb. For many people, there is a sense that too many politicians say one thing and then do another. There is a sense that Parliament is divorced from day-to-day life, and this frustration and disillusionment with mainstream parties encourage them to look to others to represent their views. This is the backcloth to the debate on this Bill and this amendment.

Let us not forget the democratic path that has brought us here. The Conservative Party promised to hold a referendum and respect the outcome. This Parliament gave people the choice of whether to leave or to remain in the European Union: a choice without caveat or condition. It was a choice that the people exercised, having been told by the Government in the leaflet sent to every household in the land:

“The Government will implement what you decide”.


The majority voted to leave, not to have a second referendum and not to think again. The people have spoken and this Bill delivers on their wish.

My first question to your Lordships is: would it help build trust in politics if we, the unelected Chamber, were to tell the people, “We did not like your first answer; please try harder”? I think not: quite the reverse. When Scotland voted against independence, what was the response from any politicians? I shall quote one:

“You have to abide by the outcome ... I don’t think re-opening old wounds would be good for Scotland”.

Those were the words of Mr Nick Clegg. Whatever the cynical machinations of the Scottish Nationalists today, I believe that what Mr Clegg said was true then as regards Scotland and is true today as regards Europe. We promised a referendum, not a “neverendum”. The government leaflet said the referendum was a once-in-a-generation decision, not a twice-in-five-years decision. We cannot keep asking the question until we get the answer that some want.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

The Minister is making the case against a question that we did not ask, which is, “Shall we have another referendum on in or out?”. We accept that that is not going to happen. We accept that the Government have a mandate for Brexit. Will he tell us what mandate they now have for leaving the single market?

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, I know the hour is late so I will be very short; I will confine myself to making three points. The first is to adopt the language of my noble friend Lord Deben. This House must recognise that, ultimately, the decision has to be made by Parliament. Historically, there has always been tension between the Executive and Parliament and I happen to be a Roundhead on this matter. Let us not forget, as my noble friend pointed out, that we would not be debating this Bill had the courts not intervened. The truth is that Governments always seek to advance ministerial power at the expense of Parliament and we must push back. The historians among us will remember John Dunning saying that,

“the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished”,

and, with suitable alteration, that is where I stand.

My second point refers to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said a propos the risk of there being no agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, assessed that risk as being higher than 30% and I entirely share that view. We need to address that in statutory language. That is what I tried to achieve in the new clause that would be introduced by my Amendment 32.

My final point, turning to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—I know it is the view of the noble Baroness as well—is that assurances are well and good and I do not at all doubt the good faith of the Ministers who give them. But I prefer to see assurances in statutory language. Prime Ministers can go, Ministers can be sacked, Parliaments can change and Governments can cease to exist. One needs to enshrine assurances that stand against those changes in circumstances. Therefore, whenever we come to divide on this group of amendments, whichever is chosen, I shall support it because I stand in favour of parliamentary government.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

My Lords, it is very late. We are tired. I do not know about the rest of your Lordships but I certainly am. I have sat here for four hours, a speech burning in my head, but listening to the speeches that have been made, I would not make any point that has not been made already, particularly in regard to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which were probably better than any I could ever have made. I am content to leave their words as mine on the record, in the hope that we may hear from the Minister fairly soon.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I, too, am not going to repeat the arguments put so succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, nor the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—although my noble friend Lord Lennie said at one point, “Oh dear, it sounds like a redrafting of Clause 4”. A certain group would understand that.

The agreement that the Government negotiate, or fail to negotiate, has enormous implications for this country. As has been said from the Dispatch Box many times, the referendum gave the UK a final say: that we should leave the European Union. That is the destination. However, it said nothing about the route or the pace of that change. As someone said to me, it is a bit like deciding to jump out of an aeroplane. You know exactly where you are going, but doing it before you have learned how to use the parachute could be troublesome. You could have a hard landing—that was the wrong phrase—if you do not know about the wind, the altitude and particularly the position of the ripcord.

The referendum gave no hints about any of the trade-offs that will come in what I hope will be a harmonious partnership that we will be able to negotiate with the EU 27. The Government will negotiate that, but Parliament must agree it. The agreement will have to go to the Council and the European Parliament; that is written in law in Article 50. It is therefore mandatory in law that the European Parliament will have to give its consent. But there is nothing in law that states that this Parliament must give its consent.

Although assurances have been given and the Prime Minister has said that there will be a vote in both Houses, it is not good enough. That is partly because it is a vote rather than legislation and partly because the same protection that the European Parliament has is not written in statute. That is all we are asking for. There must be equal legislative requirement on the exit deal for this Parliament to cover all eventualities. The debate has been on whether we have just the divorce, the withdrawal, or we have the withdrawal plus the framework, or the withdrawal and even a treaty—I doubt it will be within two years—or whether we get nowhere. Surely, as has been said by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, only this Parliament can decide on that. That is all that we are asking. The drafting can improve.

The most interesting questions were asked by the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Higgins: why do the Government not want to do this? What is troubling them? They are going to have to do it at some time. They can either bring forward another piece of legislation later, which I think was the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, or they will be taken there by a court—but get there we will. That is another part of the destination; there will have to be legislation and this sort of amendment, tweaked if necessary, is one that this House will want to support.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon Excerpts

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

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I remind him of one or two aspects of the Welsh devolution referendum. I was the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats from 1992 to 1997 and strongly supported devolution to Wales, as he did. It has worked extremely well. However, I remind him that nobody—certainly no Liberal Democrat I knew in Wales—envisaged that, if we did not like the way devolution was set up, we would have a second referendum. We would have considered that view completely idiotic and unconstitutional.

I have been on this side of the House for only the last two or three months, so my memory of being a Liberal Democrat is reasonably fresh. It is clear in my mind that at the time of the European referendum last year the starting point for Liberal Democrats was as follows: there would be one referendum. It was not suggested for one moment that there would be two, three or even four referenda. I see the logic of what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said earlier and think he was rather wrongly put down by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, because he made a perfectly fair point. It was envisaged by Liberal Democrats that there would be one referendum and that it would be in accordance with the law. The law provides that referenda are advisory and subject to parliamentary procedure thereafter. If a referendum result, for good reason, is rejected by Parliament then the result is rejected by Parliament. That is what Liberal Democrats expected—namely, the normal process. We would have heard had it been otherwise.

I want to make two particular points, one tactical and the other constitutional.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

As I remember, to my cost, the noble Lord’s recollection of what positions Liberal Democrats took in the past has not always been entirely accurate. On this issue surely the difference is this. When the Wales referendum was put, it was put on a specific proposition, fully backed up with policy and detail. On this occasion, the proposition put to the British people was to leave or not. They decided to leave. That mandate is clear and the Government are entitled to enact it. But, unless the noble Lord might like to suggest what the mandate is for the particular form of exit the Government choose, there is no mandate to leave the single market, nor to leave the common customs union. Therefore, if there is no mandate for that, why have the Government chosen to use it and follow the most hard-line Brexit possible? If the noble Lord believes that there is a mandate for that, will he describe what it is, given that the majority of the people in this country in opinion polls have made it clear that they do not support this and the Conservative—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, let me see if I can make a rather better hash of it this time than I did with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Is the Minister embarrassed by the fact that he keeps on answering the question by referring to an issue that is not addressed? We are not saying that there has to be a second referendum on European Union membership. That is done and we accept that the Government have their mandate. What we do not believe the Government have a mandate for is a brutal Brexit that will take us out of the single market. Can he explain why he believes that he does have that mandate, given that it was set out specifically in the Conservative Party manifesto that they would not do this?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, the Conservative Party manifesto made it absolutely clear that we would respect the outcome, a position that the noble Lord himself took on the night of the referendum. It is absolutely our intention that the Government will deliver on the results of the referendum. I know that the noble Lord is spending Lent eating his own words, but I am sorry to say that he is wrong on this point.

Then there are the consequences of such a referendum. Would it bring certainty? Will businesses clap their hands with glee at the thought of a referendum some years off, the basis on which it would be held unclear, but the consequences of which could be to throw the entire negotiated settlement up in the air? We know the answer. As I have said, the Institute of Directors have called for:

“A commitment across all major political parties … not to undertake a second referendum on either EU membership or the Brexit deal to reduce uncertainty”.


What would happen, even after all this, if the result of the second referendum is still to leave? As some noble Lords have pointed out, would we once again be subjected to people saying, “Actually, we don’t like this answer. Please try again”? Where does it end? Will we continue to hold the same referendum until we get the result that those who support this amendment prefer?

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon Excerpts

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

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, my noble friend has made a very serious point, which enables me to cut directly to the chase, to one of the points I was going to make. It is possible that my noble friend Lord Hill is right about this. There is sometimes a price to be paid for democracy. Indeed, that is the argument that underpins many of the assertions made by the Brexiteers. They argue that, yes, there may be a cost involved in withdrawal but it is more than compensated for by the recovery of democratic control. That argument also applies to the process of negotiation.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

In answer to that very question, I ask the noble Viscount to cast his mind back to 1991, when he and I were both in the other place. He was a member of the Government, as I recall. On that occasion the then Prime Minister, John Major, brought the Maastricht treaty to the House for its approval twice; first, in seeking a mandate for negotiation; and, secondly, afterwards in seeking the House’s approval for what had been negotiated. If that did not weaken his Government at the time, why should this weaken this one?

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said. Of course, it is also consistent with the principles that underpin Section 20 of the 2010 Act, because that requires all treaties to be ratified by Parliament.

If I might make a little progress, the Government have in the course of the Bill made a very large number of concessions. It would be churlish not to welcome that fact. Indeed, I rather hope for more. But I agree with the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is better by far that the assurances and concessions of Ministers be expressed in statutory language because, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has reminded the House, political circumstances may change. Ministers may move on; Governments may fall. Statutory language is always to be preferred to the comforting words of Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, this debate has shown this House at its very best, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Forty-four, I think, hours of debate on these 137 words show how sprightly your Lordships are.

Before I discuss the amendments, I shall briefly set out three core principles governing our approach to this country’s withdrawal from the European Union. First, the Government are determined to honour and deliver on the result of the referendum: the United Kingdom is going to leave the European Union. Secondly, everything we do will be determined by our national interest, and we shall do nothing to undermine it. Thirdly, parliamentary sovereignty is key. Parliament will have a role in scrutinising the Government throughout the negotiations and in making decisions, a point to which I will return.

Given this, I turn now to the rationale and motives behind the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Cormack, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. One basic intent is that the Government should be legally bound to deliver on their commitment to give Parliament a vote on the agreement. That government commitment is crystal clear, and I shall repeat it: the commitment is to bring forward a Motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.

The need for my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendment, and the first three proposed new subsections of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, really comes down to a judgment about whether Ministers and the Government can be trusted and to considering the consequences if the Government were not to deliver on this commitment. All I can say is that of course we will honour our promise and Parliament will hold the Government to account for doing so. Let me go further and echo a point very well made by my noble friend Lord Howard: at any point throughout this process, Parliament will be able to express its view. Given this, the other place was happy with this state of affairs. It considered and rejected similar amendments.

Furthermore, Parliament will not be providing scrutiny in the dark. After all, this Government have committed to keeping the UK Parliament at least as well informed as the European Parliament as negotiations progress. The Government will continue to be accountable to Parliament via regular Statements—which I so enjoy—debates and Select Committee appearances. Crucially, Parliament’s role will not just be one of scrutiny. It will make decisions and shape the legislation required to give effect to our withdrawal from the European Union: the great repeal Bill to repeal the ECA and the legislation that will be required for significant policy changes, such as on immigration and customs. With the greatest of respect to my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, any amendment that attempts to transcribe the Government’s commitment into legislation is unnecessary. More than being unnecessary, an amendment that sought to put this commitment in the Bill could have unintended consequences and create, as has been said, a lucrative field day for lawyers. I do not want to single out any particular lawyer, but I have one in mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, put it so well in Committee,

“regulating parliamentary proceedings by statute ... generally ends in some sort of tears”.—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 920.]

Other noble Lords have asked whether someone might argue that we need an Act of Parliament to authorise our exit from the European Union and whether the Bill is sufficient for our withdrawal. The requirements of the Miller judgment are entirely fulfilled by the Bill. The Supreme Court ruled that because withdrawal from the EU involves removing a source of domestic law in the UK, and because of the far-reaching effects of the European Communities Act, the authority of primary legislation is needed before the Government can decide to give notice under Article 50. The Supreme Court did not rule that anything further is required to satisfy our constitutional requirements.

Let me now turn to subsection (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 3, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I have to say there is something about Labour and Clause 4, but we will put that to one side. The motive behind this subsection was summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in Committee and he repeated it today. He said:

“Parliament should decide whether we leave the EU with no agreement or whether we leave the EU with whatever agreement is being offered to us by the EU that the Government think is unacceptable”.—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 907-8.]


As he said, proposed new subsection (4) goes beyond what the Government have committed to in the other place and there are several problems with it. The first concerns the Government’s role as negotiator and one of my first principles, which is protecting our national interest. When considering this amendment, we must ask ourselves whether it will strengthen or weaken the Government’s hand at the negotiating table. Remember the wise words of this House’s Select Committee:

“The Government will conduct the negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom, and, like any negotiator, it will need room to manoeuvre if it is to secure a good outcome”.


Let us not forget the Motion passed by the other place that nothing should be done to undermine the negotiating position of the Government. This proposed new subsection in this amendment would do just that—

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords—

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Let me continue please. Denying the Prime Minister the ability to walk away from the negotiating table, as proposed new subsection (4) would do, would only incentivise the European Union to offer us a bad deal. The European Union is bound to see that there are a number of people in Parliament who think that any deal is better than no deal. We heard some noble Lords argue just now that to go to WTO terms would be bad for Britain. Therefore, this amendment simply makes the negotiations much harder from day one for the Prime Minister, since it increases the incentive for the European Union to offer nothing but a bad deal.

Some have argued that the proposed clause would strengthen the Government’s hand. They say that this is like a CEO saying, “My board will not agree to that deal”. However, this analogy is not correct in this case. Most boards would say, “We want to do a deal, but not at any price”. In this case, a number of parliamentarians are saying, “Any deal is better than no deal”. This approach would therefore weaken the Government’s position.

However, that is not the only problem with this amendment. The amendment is clear—

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords—

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Forgive me. The amendment is clear on one thing, and one thing only: namely, that if Parliament agrees with the Prime Minister that no deal is better than the terms on offer, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a deal. However, it is unclear—totally unclear—what happens if the House says no to walking away. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth asked, what path must the Prime Minister then take? Is she to accept the terms on offer? Is she being told to secure a better deal—and, if so, what would happen if that cannot be achieved before the end of the two-year period? Alternatively, in the silence of the amendment on this matter, is she to find a means to remain a member of the European Union?

We do not know the answer to any of these questions. My noble friend Lord Forsyth was entirely right to highlight this omission. The Government cannot possibly accept an amendment that is so unclear on an issue of this importance: what the Prime Minister is to do if Parliament votes against leaving with no agreement.

With regard to that risk, let us remember the first principle that I stated: the Government are intent on delivering on the result of the referendum as a matter of firm policy. I almost turn to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to repeat the words after me. As a matter of firm policy, a notification under Article 50 will not be revoked. Therefore, for the Government, any question of whether notification under Article 50 is legally reversible is irrelevant. The parliamentary vote that we have promised will be very meaningful: we will leave with a deal or we will leave without a deal. That is the choice on offer. However, the choice offered by this amendment by proposed subsection (4), is unclear.

I will end by repeating the first line of the White Paper:

“We do not approach these negotiations expecting failure, but anticipating success”.


Our clear intent, as I said, is to negotiate a new partnership with the European Union that will enable us and Europe to continue to trade freely together and to co-operate and collaborate where it is in our interests. Parliament will decide on whether to accept or reject the agreement. The purpose of this simple Bill is to deliver on the result of the referendum and to leave the EU. These amendments are unnecessary. They are damaging to our national interest, they would create uncertainty and they may be used by some to block the wish of the British people to leave the European Union. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Let me just finish this, and then the noble Lord will able to speak. I am sure that once I have sat down he will be able to speak. This is why the other place considered the issue again and rejected this amendment.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

Before the Minister sits down, will he accept an intervention?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I will take one intervention from the noble Lord.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I am most grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention—enfin. I am genuinely puzzled. If it is the case that John Major could seek parliamentary approval for the Maastricht Bill twice without weakening his bargaining position, how is it that this Government cannot allow Parliament to have a say once without weakening theirs?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I am sorry to say to the noble Lord that I am genuinely puzzled by his position. He went on national television and said that he would obey the decision of the British people and now he is trying to get away from those comments. That is what I think will baffle many people. We have made the Government’s position very clear: when an agreement has been reached, we will give this House and the other place the chance to vote on it. That is the Government’s position. I urge noble Lords not to insist on the amendment and I beg to move Motion B.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)