European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Well, my Lords, finally we have the Article 50 Bill. If the Government had brought it forward last July, six months of delay could have been avoided. Since then, three things in particular have happened that require us to take stock and to fashion a response.

First, there was the deliberate decision of the Prime Minister to prioritise control of EU migration and the severing of links with the European Court of Justice over membership of the single market and the customs union. As George Osborne put it, they have,

“chosen … not to make the economy the priority in this negotiation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/17; col. 1034.]

Although some seek to portray that as an inevitable consequence of the 23 June vote, it was not. Many prominent Brexit supporters, including Nigel Farage, Dan Hannan and the Brexit Secretary himself suggested that we might remain in the single market—for example, by adopting the Norwegian precedent. So the decision to rip us out of the single market was a deliberate choice by the Prime Minister, and one that deserves to be challenged.

Secondly, as a consequence of the form of hard Brexit chosen by the Government, they have been forced to pivot our trade and indeed our political priorities towards the USA, and they have done so with unalloyed enthusiasm. In any era this would be a risky strategy, but the election of Donald Trump makes an America-first policy by this country not only risky but demeaning. The bold assertion by the Foreign Secretary that the US “shares our values” is unsustainable under a Trump presidency. On a wide variety of fronts—not just his ban on asylum seekers but on free trade, climate change and relations with Russia and Iran—Trump’s policies are opposed to British values and interests. I am sure the Prime Minister is acutely aware of this, yet her headlong rush to the US, offering them the trinket of a state visit, only serves to underline her weakness and the weakening position of the UK.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Newby]

No, my Lords. There are 190 other speakers; the noble Lord will have his chance.

Thirdly, we have now had the White Paper setting out the Government’s negotiating stance. With the stark exception of its rejection of the single market and the European Court, the White Paper is a rather horrifying mixture of pious aspiration and complacent illusion. The Prime Minister’s preface sets the tone. British exceptionalism abounds. We have,

“the finest intelligence services, the bravest armed forces, the most effective hard and soft power”.

What is more, according to the White Paper,

“the country is coming together”,

with,

“65 million people willing us to make it happen”.

The whole tone portrays the UK as a sort of a fettered giant, a national equivalent of Clark Kent which, having entered the Brexit telephone booth, can emerge as a Superman ready to take on the world and win. Either the Prime Minister believes this, which is deeply worrying; or she hopes that by whistling a happy tune, all will work out well, which is scarcely more reassuring.

In view of these developments, how should this House approach the Bill before us? Can we and should we seek simply to send it on its way, or can we and should we seek to amend it? On the first question, the answer is crystal clear. We have the power to ask the Commons to think again on any piece of legislation, large or small. I hope the Government will accept that. When we had the Statement in response to the Supreme Court ruling on 24 January, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that,

“we in this House, as an unelected Chamber, need to tread with considerable care on this issue as we proceed”.

The clear implication was that we should not be pressing amendments. In response, however, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, replied:

“It would be very useful if, when we debate this Bill and there are opposing views and we ask the other place to think again, we do not have Ministers, or anybody else, talking about constitutional crises. This place cannot have the last word. A Government defeat in your Lordships’ House is simply a request to the Commons to look at the issue again—that is all it is”.—[Official Report, 12/1/17; cols. 561 and 567.]


That sums up the position perfectly.

I therefore hope that Ministers in this House will not mimic the attitude of some of their colleagues in another place by dismissing concerns or queries raised by Members of your Lordships’ House as merely opposing the will of the people or by saying that we are trying to obstruct the process. No significant body of opinion in this House is seeking to prevent the passage of the Bill, but there is a world of difference between blocking the Bill and seeking to amend it.

So, if we clearly have the power to amend the Bill, should we positively seek to do so? I believe that we should. Brexit is the most important single issue which has faced the country for decades. For many of us, the approach being adopted by the Government is little short of disastrous. For those of us—and there are many in your Lordships’ House—for whom Europe has been a central theme of our entire political lives, to sit on our hands in the circumstances is both unthinkable and unconscionable.

Many of us throughout the House have always been proud internationalists. We have a profound and deep-rooted commitment to partnership with our European neighbours, a partnership which has resulted in a peaceful Europe where we work in co-operation with one another to overcome common adversaries—climate change, disease, organised crime, terrorism—and to share in the benefits of close relations with our neighbours. How could we possibly justify supine acceptance of what the Government are proposing to ourselves, let alone to others who are watching?

How then should be seek to amend the Bill? There are several sorts of amendments that were debated in the Commons. These amendments related to parliamentary scrutiny, to the role of the devolved Administrations, to impact assessments and to negotiating priorities, from the relationship to the single market to the rights of EU citizens in the UK. All of these are extremely important areas. We on these Benches will want to work across the House with others who seek to pursue them, but for us the key question as we begin the negotiations is: what happens at the end of the process? The Government were not given a blank cheque by the electorate. Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination.

If and when the Prime Minister reaches a Brexit deal, who will ratify it on behalf of the nation? Only three bodies could do so: the Government, Parliament, or the people as a whole. The Government have already said that they will give Parliament a vote on the deal, although at present they seem to be willing to offer a vote on only one option—to accept the deal or crash out of the EU. We will of course seek in your Lordships’ House to give Parliament a more meaningful role at the end of the process, but even if we succeed, Parliament, having decided to ask the people to express a view on whether they wished to leave the EU, should not have the final say. If only parliamentarians had had a vote in the referendum, our future EU membership would be secure. Both MPs and Peers overwhelmingly thought that our better interests were served by staying in the EU, including, of course, many members of the current Administration—not least those in your Lordships’ House.

At the end of the process initiated by the people, only the people should have the final say. I realise that many in your Lordships’ House are strongly opposed to referenda and shrink from the prospect of having any more, but we now have a country more deeply divided on Brexit than ever. The anger of those who wanted to leave is now matched by the growing anger of those who wish to remain—particularly our young people. If at the end of this process we are to come together as a country, we need to dissipate this anger, and we believe that giving the people the final say will help to do so.

I must also challenge those many Members of your Lordships’ House who have approached me and my colleagues in recent weeks to say that they believe Brexit is a catastrophe for the country and fervently wish to avert it. How, other than a referendum, do noble Lords think this could be seen to be done legitimately? Having remitted power over our membership of the EU to the people, who but the people could ultimately exercise the power to think again? Of course, the idea of such a referendum should not be alien to the Government. David Davis has argued over a number of years for what he calls a “decision” referendum at the end of the negotiating process. He has not said much about that in recent months but he did let his guard slip in concluding his Second Reading speech on the Article 50 Bill in the Commons when he quoted Gladstone, who said: “Trust the people”. Trust the people. My Lords, we agree.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, the referendum campaign on both sides was appalling. It verged on abuse. The people of this country deserve better and as a political class, we owe them a profound apology. Divisions inevitably linger and perhaps some are in danger of growing, particularly on immigration. I spoke a few words yesterday and, with your leave, will speak a few more today.

We condemn the outbursts of intolerance—of course we do. However, much of the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of a political establishment that, for 20 years, has chosen largely to ignore the problem. The left shouted down anyone who wanted to discuss the issue, accusing them of being racist while we on the right offered up glib, implausible promises. How did we, as Conservatives, expect ordinary people to react when at one moment we promised to reduce immigration to tens, not hundreds of thousands—no ifs or buts—and only a year later delivered a net total in a single year of 330,000? We share the blame.

I wept when I saw that dreadful referendum poster of refugees. Is it their fault? No, it is not theirs. The fault lies with us. We have been sleeping comfortably with our consciences and have slept too long. As a result, today millions of people who are legally and properly settled in Britain are afraid, uncertain of what we might do with them and to them. They do not deserve such uncertainty. At times politics requires us to climb into bed with some pretty uncomfortable bedfellows. In the case of vote leave, dare I suggest that some of my fellow campaigners forgot to take off their boots?

This referendum was about freedoms and tolerance, not just for a few but for us all. It was about the British sense of fair play and flexibility—nothing to do with racist bullying and kicking out minorities. It was about moving forward, not about retreating to dark old days of an island surrounded by stormy seas. Above all, it was about respect—respect for the wishes of the people, which requires respect for others, no matter what their origins, their colour or their accents. Yesterday the Government said that it would be unwise to offer assurances to immigrants already here without parallel assurances from other European Governments. What are they saying? Is offering assurances unwise? No, it is far from it. It would be an act of humanity, of friendship and of leadership. After all, what was Brexit about if not establishing a sovereign independent Government capable of making up their own mind? We do not need anybody else’s permission. Those days are gone. It is our choice, so I want to press the Government and all those who have ambition to lead the Government for clear assurances that EU immigrants already living lawfully in this country need have no fears. They are welcome and will continue to be.

What are we to have, for pity’s sake? Are we to have mass transportations like we have seen in the Balkans, with vast lines of mothers, bewildered babes in arms, crossing the Channel in different directions? That is the way of madness. It is worth repeating that these people are not bargaining chips, least of all hostages. They are our neighbours and our friends. We Conservatives are not, dare I say it, the nasty party and we must not become one. Any future Government who tried to introduce legislation to send back legally settled immigrants would be out of their mind and soon be out of office—otherwise we would lose our sense of decency. We would lose the superb support that we enjoy in our health service, in our care services, in the contributions we get in every street of every town in every corner of the country—and not least, the superb service we get in our own dining room. Ministers please take note: it is not going to happen; get on with it.

What will happen? It is no one’s interest that we should be cut off from the EU. We are, and still will be, all of us, Europeans. There is no reason why that relationship should not be warm and productive, but I urge the EU in its own interests to find a better means of dealing with this crisis than through its unelected president. I do not wish to personalise this, but if it had not been for President Juncker’s conduct and exquisitely clumsy commentaries—he has been at it again today—I think that remain would have won.

This will and must be a political process, balancing the rights of the UK and the rights of the EU—a process that requires vision and is run not by bureaucracy but by elected politicians, those who can feel the hot breath of the people on their necks. That means above all Frau Merkel, who, more than any other person, holds the future of Europe in her hands. I would say this to her if I could. If not union, then alliance. If not as one, then at least together. If we are no longer bound by law, then let us be bound by bonds of overwhelming friendship. We have a mountain to climb, but the view from the summit might yet prove awesome.

Syria: UK Military Action

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, we are, I suspect, about to embark once again on the business of war. At this moment, above all else, we must remember that the objective of war is not to secure victory but to secure the peace.

It is understandable that so many are cautious. The failures of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya cast a long shadow. I have considerable reservations. We are told that IS represents “a fundamental threat” to our national security, yet we will not commit troops to the ground under any circumstances. That is militarily bizarre. What are troops for if not to deal with a fundamental threat to our national security?

Am I alone in having no clear understanding of what the specific political objectives of the Free Syrian Army are? Perhaps my noble friend Lord Howe will be able to tell us when he winds up. Yet alongside those reservations, and many others, I ask myself this: what would we be saying if the attack had been on London rather than on Paris and the French refused to help us? The headlines and the outpourings of insults and accusations would be appalling. Enduring friendships sometimes require us to swallow our doubts.

This will not be a war against Islam but against evil, butchers, beheaders and crucifiers. I have no doubt that we will win the military conflict, but what I fear most is that, in the aftermath of victory, we will throw away the peace, as we have done too many times before. If winning a war is a messy business, securing the peace can be far more difficult.

Peace in the land called Syria will not be the peace we hope for. We are going to get our hands dirty. It will involve deals with Russia and Iran. It will involve us finding a way of dealing with Assad, too, despite our reservations. Some will undoubtedly describe such deals as grubby. The end result will have little to do with democracy, human rights and fair play and everything to do with stability and practical things—grubby compromises. It might even involve an effective division of Syria or widespread and forced relocation of populations. Nothing can be ruled out. Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurd will demand autonomy and their own security, and how will we square our new friends the Kurds with our old allies the Turks?

In the end, we will do things that we would rather not do, and we will fail to do some of those things that we very much want to see done. If, and only if, we are ready to meet the challenges of that peace should we embark on this challenge of war. Let us not dare set out on a journey that we fail to finish.

Syria: Foreign Affairs Committee Report

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comments, particularly because of the remarks he prefaced them with about his views on the war in Iraq.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, may I nudge my noble friend very gently on this issue of the position of Assad, which has come up in many comments this morning? Up to this point, the British Government have been absolutely clear that this is black and white and that they will not under any circumstances talk to Assad. Yet in this search for peace and stability in Syria, diplomatic solutions occasionally require us to get our hands dirty. I listened very carefully to the Statement this morning, which said that we are,

“working towards the transition to a new government in Syria”,

and,

“ultimately Assad must go”.

That sounded to me as if we were being rather more flexible on the matter of talking with Assad. If that is the case, I suggest to my noble friend that many of us would welcome that flexibility.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to every speech and after such a fascinating debate I am not sure that I have much new to offer, but I will try.

These last few months have been cruel for the reputation of our House. Much of the criticism is unfair, yet we live in a world that takes great delight in toppling gilded towers. Our gilded tower is one of the most spectacular. It is also the easiest of targets. A lot of repair work can be done, and surprisingly quickly, if we are able to engage in information and rebuttal, to explain the work we do and to correct some of the more grotesque distortions that have taken hold. An information and rebuttal post could be set up now, within weeks. We could move very quickly.

The public deserve to know the facts, not just the fiction. Take our dining habits. It is widely believed that we dine on lobster and caviar; I am not sure what I will dine on this evening but it certainly will not be that. Most of us, I suspect, have not even eaten lobster here. Being a good working-class lad, the closest I got to caviar is a taramosalata salad in the River canteen. I must confess to buying a little champagne, but like so many noble Lords, almost every drop of it has been to raise money for charity. The delusions and distortions that we suffer are appalling. They may pass, but I rather doubt it. Some of us, a few, have played into their hands.

So how can we fix the damage? First, by re-emphasising that we are a House of duties, not privileges. We Peers are here to serve this House and the country beyond; we must never make it seem as though this House is here to serve us. Secondly, none of us deserves a job for life by right; there comes a point where enough is enough—move on.

In the mean time, we must focus remorselessly on the quality of the work that we do. That work is vital. I like to think of this House as a great parliamentary composting machine, improving and making more fragrant whatever—I was about to say “rubbish”—is thrown at us from the other place. My Lords, we should take pride in being parliamentary worms or rather glow-worms.

How do we translate all this into specific proposals? With fixed terms, age limits, enforced retirements? They have the merit of simplicity, but suffer the tragic weakness of not finding the pleasure of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Perhaps we should go back to finding the more traditional methods of finding constitutional compromise: Strathclyde and Steel in a locked room—winner takes all. It is a thought.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I would win.

[Lord Dobbs]

What is fundamental is that the size of this House should be restrained. It may not be a silver bullet, to use the phrase of my noble friend the Leader, but through restraint so much more would follow. We cannot carry on growing like a pig’s bladder. A House without limits is a House of confused qualities, with too many dusty corners for those who should not be here at all. So, numbers reduced by internal selection following the precedent set by hereditaries and others—as set out so ably by my noble friend Lord Cormack—a House no larger than the Commons would have the huge benefit of focusing public attention both on the job we do and who is best to do it.

None of this is easy. Sometimes in politics you have to do rather a lot to achieve just a little, and that is where we find ourselves today. Perhaps I am wrong about all this—I am often accused of turning everything into a drama—but this House is a House of service or it is nothing. If we cannot move forward with some urgency, we may find ourselves being dragged behind a crowd of flat-earthers, who do not understand public duty and who want to sweep this House away lock, stock and biscuit barrel. In that we will have lost a thing not only of great—

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but he seems to be implying that turning off the tap is down to us. Is it not down to the Prime Minister?

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, perhaps given the lateness of the night and the fact that I am a breath away from finishing, we can conduct the rest of this conversation outside. The noble Lord has already had a long list of minutes today, so if he does not mind I will treat this later.

I conclude by saying that, if we allow the flat-earthers to win, if this place is swept away, as it could be, we will have lost not only a thing of great beauty but a thing of unique value.

BBC Royal Charter

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the Government are committed to strong Welsh language broadcasting, although the funding arrangements for the future are clearly for the charter review. I am sure they will be looked at in that context. It is really important to safeguard Welsh language broadcasting. When I was on maternity leave, I was a big fan of “Pobol y Cwm”, which you can get in the south-west, where I was spending some time.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, if the noble Baroness were to go round any of the market squares of eastern Europe and talk to anybody over the age of 45, she would discover how vital the BBC has been in emphasising British and western cultural values. The same could now be said of all the villages and madrassahs in places such as Afghanistan, where they gather round a television still in their coffee shops. For those of us who believe that the BBC, in some of its areas, needs a good and perhaps vigorous nudging, will she ensure that that crucial element of soft power which the BBC represents is not undermined but indeed enhanced?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I have spent a lot of time in the towns of central Europe and I know just how important the BBC is to them. Indeed, I was very pleased to hear that while there were a lot of concerns about the World Service, the funding has actually gone up since the new arrangements were brought in.