European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, to which I hope we are going to give an unopposed Second Reading tonight, is a pretty different animal to the one tabled some six or more months ago. It has been amended, against the will of the Government, to provide for a meaningful statutory process before any deal is approved by Parliament—a provision originally put forward by your Lordships’ House last March in the context of the Article 50 Bill. That is very welcome. The Government have also brought forward amendments on the handling of Henry VIII powers, which, while they certainly need further improvement and strengthening, at least show that the Government are aware that the original approach was excessively tilted towards the Executive. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House made a good move when she said that she was listening and would probably bring forward further amendments soon.

But this Bill remains, I fear, a serious case of putting the cart before the horse. We are, in fact, being asked to legislate before we know the outcome of the negotiations in Brussels with respect to the divorce settlement, the transition or standstill phase and the framework for a new partnership, all of which will alter—and probably in many cases override—much of what is in this Bill. Moreover, the Bill stands in the heavy shadow of a further piece of primary legislation, the implementation Bill, which will need to complete its course through Parliament before we leave, because it will need to give effect in our domestic law to any provisions to which we have agreed in the negotiations in Brussels. That implementation Bill had not even been thought of at the time when this withdrawal Bill was originally tabled, when it was then called the great repeal Bill. That is a bit of a sign of the Government’s remarkably haphazard and rather chaotic approach to Brexit.

Nevertheless, for all its defects, this Bill is clearly a necessity. The gaps in our statute book need to be plugged if, and when, we actually leave. That is why it is right to give the Bill a Second Reading. However deeply those like myself believe that leaving the European Union is a fundamental error of judgment, which will be damaging to our economy and to our influence in the world, we are absolutely required to put this Bill on the statute book without undue delay.

The Minister who will reply to this debate is particularly fond of dwelling on the democratic legitimacy of the June 2016 referendum vote and of the whole Brexit process. I have no intention of beginning a debate here today about the relative merits of plebiscitary and representative parliamentary democracy, but I would just say that people who live in glass houses should be a bit careful about throwing stones. The Minister’s presence at the Dispatch Box is largely due to the support in the other place for the Government’s Brexit policies by the 10 Members of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, but that party has no democratic legitimacy as far as Brexit is concerned at all, because the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain.

I shall mention just one or two of the matters that will certainly need more careful scrutiny. The first of these is the provision that would have the effect of extinguishing the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in this country on the day we leave. Whatever one’s views of the Government’s rather mindless demonisation of the European Court of Justice—and, in my view, it is both mystifying and self-defeating—the Government have already conceded the point in Brussels, since individuals will be able to take their cases on status issues and have them referred to the European Court of Justice for the next eight years after we leave. The standstill, transitional arrangements, which are currently under negotiation, are inevitably going to drive an even larger coach and horses across that red line. So why on earth should we be marched up to the top of the hill to eliminate the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice on the day we leave, only to be marched back down again in the implementation Bill?

Then there is the whole business of the exclusion from the scope of this Bill of just one piece of many thousands of pages of the acquis communautaire, the Charter of Fundamental Rights. How on earth can that be justified? The fundamental rights enshrined in the EU charter and the Council of Europe convention are values that we need to uphold, whether we are inside or outside the European Union. They surely need to be part of the new partnership, for example, which the Prime Minister, rightly in my view, is trying to negotiate as her ultimate objective.

Committee stage debates are all too often in this House treated as Second Reading debates, but I shall try to avoid falling into the opposite trap—so I shall stop talking about specifics. The complexity of the overall package of legislative instruments, not just in this Bill but in the others that will follow it, is pretty daunting. It is a reminder of the extent to which our economy has become integrated with that of our European neighbours over the past 40 years. It is shameful that those who campaigned to take us out of the European Union were so unaware of that or, if they were aware of it, were so unwilling to share that with the voters. I think that the voters are now becoming aware of what is in store for them; the chickens are coming home to roost, and it is going to be a pretty painful experience.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, there is a huge amount of work being done by various economists, lobby groups, institutions and think tanks on regulation and various agreements. I am not aware of the specific work the noble Baroness talks about. Of course I know some of the individuals she mentioned—they are good friends of mine—but I am not aware of all that work. Now she has mentioned it, I will go away and have a look at it. I am sure it is very good, but I cannot comment until I have seen it.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

The Minister puzzled me slightly just then by saying that once the implementation phase—that piece of Orwellian language —is complete, the object will be to negotiate with the EEA partners of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein to preserve our present relationship, but that includes free movement.

[Lord Callanan]

With great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think I said that we would preserve the present relationship. We will want to establish a new relationship with those states. We have always had close and friendly relationships with them. Ultimately that will be a matter for the negotiations.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Does the noble Viscount not understand that if we participate from outside the European Union, instead of getting more back than we put in we will get exactly the same back as we put in?

[Viscount Trenchard]

I hear what the noble Lord says but I am not sure whether that follows at all. As far as the Horizon 2020 programme is concerned, presumably our contribution would still be assessed and valued in the same way that it is now. The deservability of the programmes for which we seek support would also be considered on the same basis as now, so I do not see why it should make any difference. But overall, we will have a considerable amount more money to spend, not less, because we will not be making the very large net contributions to the European Union budget that we make at present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

I very much expect that it will be in our interest to participate in it. As I said, we are taking part in discussions. We have not yet seen the detail of how it will be financed, but, given a fair ongoing contribution, I suspect that we will want to participate. But they are a matter of negotiation. It is fine for us to say that, yes, we would like to take part; we need the EU side, the other side to the negotiation, to say that, yes, they would like us to take part as well. It is a negotiation. We can give a commitment that we would like to; we cannot give a commitment that we will be accepted.

As part of the new deep and special partnership with the EU, we will recognise our shared interest in maintaining and strengthening research collaboration. The UK will seek an ambitious agreement, one that promotes science and innovation across Europe now and in future. For the avoidance of any doubt, in response to the many questions that have been asked, let me say that we support Erasmus, we support Horizon 2020, but, contrary to what many noble Lords have suggested, these are EU programmes. The UK cannot adopt a unilateral stance; there has to be bilateral agreement on them. That agreement depends, first, on understanding the shape of the Erasmus programme in May and framework programme nine, when it is clarified by the Commission, and finding a mutually acceptable financial arrangement. Subject to those conditions, we would be very happy to be able to participate in both those programmes in future.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister is drawing to an end, but he has not managed so far to say anything about the movement of researchers and students. Why can he not state categorically that we will not introduce any new impediments to students or researchers offered places in our universities? That would be entirely consistent with the introduction of a work permit scheme, because neither of those two categories come to our universities without a work offer. Why can he not say that now? Mobility is crucial in this area, but he has not said a word about it.

[Lord Callanan]

I totally agree with the noble Lord that mobility is crucial. I am fairly certain that we would not want to introduce restrictions on mobility in these areas—we want as many students to come as possible—but, as I am sure he is aware, this will be a matter for the Home Office to decide in the immigration policy that will be discussed shortly.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Viscount, I had the privilege of serving in the Foreign Office back in the 1970s. I underline his comment that it is a great shame that Lord Hurd no longer sits in the Chamber as he certainly was a very effective and powerful Foreign Secretary. One of the reasons he was successful was that he listened to people and adopted a reasonable approach to finding solutions.

There is no greater responsibility for a Government of the United Kingdom than to look after the well-being and safety of their people. At the moment there is a total dereliction of duty. We are about to abandon ways in which we have worked to protect the well-being of British people, while having absolutely no convincing indication of what is to replace our current methods of co-operation. Defence and security are inseparable and cannot be contained within national frontiers. They both require international solutions and co-operation. We also know, and debate it often in this House, that our armed services are very fully stretched; some would say overstretched. They cannot possibly do all that it is necessary to do on their own; they have to work with others. We have devised means whereby we can successfully co-operate in the interests of the British people. How on earth can we, with any sense of responsibility at all, say that we will withdraw from the existing arrangements without knowing exactly how we will fill the gap and maintain that indispensable co-operation?

This amendment, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is absolutely crucial and I am therefore very glad to have added my name to it. It does not apply just to this sphere, of course. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke in too many areas. However, we cannot defend the British people by buying pigs in pokes, but by having absolutely convincing, watertight arrangements in place. There can be no interregnum between one regime and the next; we have to undertake this in time. Will the Government please this evening begin to give us some indication of precisely what the arrangements will be and what resources will be put into them?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I was urged by my noble friend Lady Deech to be more polite to President Trump, so I will respond to that by thanking him extremely warmly for having brought home to us the value of the European Union’s common foreign and security policy. In the year he has been in office, he has singlehandedly illustrated why our national interests in a number of areas are much closer to those of our European partners than to those of his Administration: for example, as regards the nuclear deal with Iran, the rather unfortunate decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, his very lukewarm support for NATO, his withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreements and his trade policy. In all these areas he has brought home to us why this debate and this amendment, which I support, are vital to our future national interests. I hope that when the Minister responds, she will be prepared to go a bit further than generalities.

As others have already said, there is a complete lack of specificity in what the Prime Minister has said—she has, quite laudably, set out in very firm terms her desire that this should be a major pillar of the new partnership—about what the Government have in mind. It really is time that we saw more. The Prime Minister has spoken about a new treaty. We are in a negotiation. Normally, if you are in a negotiation and make a proposal, you table it. I have not seen the treaty. Has anyone seen it? I do not think that anyone has. Does it exist? I suspect not because, judging from the rather lukewarm attitude of the Foreign Secretary, he might not be able to produce much of an input into it.

This really is getting important now. We are only a year away from dropping out of all the complex machinery which makes the common foreign and security policy work. I have to say to my noble friend Lady Deech that her caricature of common foreign and security policy is bizarre. For example, the idea of a nuclear agreement with Iran originated in the European Union, and it was followed up, rather belatedly, by the United States. Therefore, I do not think that we should belittle such co-operation. In any case, the Prime Minister is firmly of the opinion that it matters and that we need to work very closely with the EU. I wonder whether it would not be better to say here and now—perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister replying to this debate could do so—that our co-operation in this area of common foreign and security policy is not subject to the rubric “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” and that it is, as we are trying to say but have been rather hesitant about saying, completely unconditional.

[Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the phrase “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” came from President Tusk, not us?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

It was not only President Tusk; it was part of the agreed conclusions of the first part of the negotiations—that is, we subscribed to it too.

As that first stage did not cover common foreign and security policy, all I am suggesting is that, now we are moving into that field in the negotiations, we should make it clear that our proposals—including the proposal for a new security treaty—are not subject to “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” but will be put forward to the mutual benefit of all parties. That would make a huge difference, because there is a lot of misunderstanding and a certain amount of suspicion that we are approaching this in a spirit of transactionalism—that we are trying to trade off one part of the negotiations against another. That would be a mistake in the field of common foreign and security policy. If it is to be pursued after we have left the European Union, it can pursued on a basis of mutual benefit only and not by a transactional approach.

Therefore, I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate she can give a little more clarity on what the Government are seeking and that she can state in absolute terms that the unconditional nature of what we are pursuing here is our policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to the noble Baroness’s amendment for two reasons. The second was that I was encouraged by what the Prime Minister said in Munich and I very much hope that we are going to have the closest possible co-operation for all our security. But the first reason that I put my name on the amendment was that I had the honour, until the unfortunate general election of last year, of serving on the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee of this House. After the general election I was summarily dismissed because I had not voted with the Government during our debates on the triggering Bill last spring. But there we are: it did not shut me up and certainly will not shut me up tonight because we took evidence from Rob Wainwright, the head of Interpol.

On that committee, I used to sit next to Lord Condon. I am very sorry that he has retired from your Lordships’ House because he made an extremely important contribution, based on vast knowledge. I was impressed by his pride in what Rob Wainwright had achieved as a Brit leading that extremely important organisation. I was impressed, too, by the searching questions that Lord Condon asked of not only Rob Wainwright but a number of other expert witnesses who came before us. The conclusion that one had to come to after those various evidence sessions was that the measure of success of our negotiations would be determined by how close we had come to replicating what already existed.

There is no point in rehearsing all my misgivings about where we are, because we are where we are. But I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can reassure the Committee that the Prime Minister, following her Munich speech, really is committed to coming to close arrangements with our European friends and neighbours to ensure that the measure of security which we enjoy—and which the people of this country enjoy—will not be damaged by an imperfect relationship with Interpol. I would like to see a proper membership of Interpol and, frankly, I am not persuaded that it could not happen. I hope it will because what matters more than anything else to the people of our country, almost a year away from the terrorist outrage which hit us here in Westminster last March, is that they feel secure. That feeling of security is encouraged if they know that there is the closest possible co-operation and exchange of information with our European friends and neighbours. One other thing that came out during our evidence sessions was the very real importance of the European arrest warrant. I hope that in building upon what the Prime Minister said in Munich, we can ensure that there is again a similar arrangement after we leave the European Union.

Those were the reasons why put I my name to the amendment and I am glad to support it. I do not want to sound offensive in any way because I have a high regard for my noble friend, who has a very difficult job to do, but I hope we will have a reply to this debate of real substance, in view of what the Prime Minister said in Munich a couple of weeks ago.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, perhaps I might carry on after the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because I too served on your Lordships’ Home Affairs Sub-Committee. I chaired it some years ago, when we were going through what could be described as a dry run for our debate tonight. That dry run was on protocol 36, the opting out and then opting back in; the current Prime Minister played a notably positive role in that, particularly so far as the European arrest warrant was concerned.

The first point, which cannot be made too often and which I hope the Minister will recognise, is that in this area of EU policy there is no safety net. It is not like trade, where the WTO rules are, I would argue, inadequate but nevertheless are there as a safety net if all else fails. There is no safety net for justice and home affairs. If we do not make watertight arrangements by 29 March next year, we will be walking on thin air. On this, I would like to ask a specific question: are the Government confident that the arrangements for a standstill transition or implementation—whatever they like to call the period that immediately follows 29 March 2019—will be applicable to these justice and home affairs matters when we are a third country? It would be good to have that answered.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

In that event, it will be by reference to the exit date that we determine whether or not it forms part of the domestic law.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I wonder if the Minister could deal with one category which I do not think he has dealt with yet; that is, a directive that is adopted before the exit date but whose implementation date is after the exit date but within the standstill period which the Government are currently negotiating in Brussels—and which, it is no secret, will involve the Government accepting that all the obligations of European law will continue to apply during that period.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The implementation period is a wholly distinct issue from what we have to address in the context of the Bill. The implementation period has yet to be negotiated. The outcome of that implementation negotiation has yet to be determined. In the event that we agree an implementation period, clearly there will have to be further statutory provision—a further Bill—addressing our rights and obligations during that implementation period, and it may be that that further Bill will amend this Bill with regard to the effect of the exit date on further EU legislation, whether in the form of regulations or directives, after 29 March 2019. But that is not an issue for this Bill. This Bill is dealing with the situation at exit, subject to the fact that, if there is a negotiation, things may change.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer]

I thank the most reverend Primate for his intervention. There is a requirement that our courts, as we heard earlier, would take regard of EU law. We were not being tied to precedent, but certainly—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I have some doubts about his repeated assertion that the sort of approach in the amendments is not being taken anywhere else in the EU statute book. I wonder if he would like to read the Prime Minister’s speech at Munich and her references to the European arrest warrant, and try to parse and construe them in any other way.

[Lord Farmer]

Am I going to be able to make my speech? I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I will be referring to the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday, which I think has some bearing and is more up to date. I am happy to talk to the noble Lord following this debate.

The amendment is highly presumptuous in suggesting a report on a measure that has no established government or parliamentary support. Passing this amendment as even contemplating a possibility of ongoing reciprocal arrangements and thence continually being bound by EU law would allow and openly encourage other areas of law, trade and social life to seek the same. This is not what the Government have said they would permit or seek. Acknowledging the possibility of this distinctive arrangement will encourage the hope of other aspects of trading and commercial life in being bound to the EU in our future arrangements.

Finally, the amendment suggests that there should be a declaration whereby a Minister of the Crown considers whether the rights of individuals in the area of family law have been weakened. This is legally controversial—and I think relates to a point just made—because of a difference of opinion on the respective advantages and disadvantages for families of EU family laws. Proposed new subsection (2)(c) in this amendment is highly presumptive of the expectation that there will be weakened rights, and would act to countenance some sort of special arrangement for ongoing reciprocity and being part of EU laws.

Amendment 53 to Clause 6 would give a UK court the power for eight years after March 2019—that is, to 2027—to refer matters relating to family law to the European court for a preliminary ruling, and it would then be bound by that ruling. Moreover, proposed new subsection (1C) states that UK courts must have regard to decisions of the European court for those eight years, but these eight years could be extended with proposed new subsection (1D). Those eight years appear to me to be entirely arbitrary; certainly, they are intended to take us beyond the next general election. But again the intention of the supporters of this amendment would appear to be that we are forever bound by the European court.

This Bill brings EU law into UK law. The Government have made it very clear that we will not be bound by the European court, but we will give strong regard to its decisions. When we apply law which is the same as EU law, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that our courts will look at European case law. The UK courts will not be bound, as understood in the common-law system of precedent in which courts are bound by higher court decisions. This was the result of the referendum and the present approach of the Government. But when it is looking at UK legislation which is similar to or indeed the same wording as EU legislation, there will need to be strong and good reasons—in my words, but as generally understood—for us not to follow it. That is already similar to the way the UK courts look at the Supreme Court decisions of other friendly jurisdictions when dealing with other international family laws—for example, in relation to Hague conventions in respect of child abduction. The UK is well able and frequently does give very strong and high regard to such decisions without being legally bound by them.

The Prime Minister was clear in her Mansion House speech on Friday on this issue. She used very careful words confirming continued strong recognition of European court decisions but not bound in law. We cannot be bound by EU laws in a reciprocal arrangement with the EU in respect of EU laws unless we are also bound by the European court. The EU will simply not countenance the UK being part of any arrangement for being bound into EU laws without being bound into the European court. This amendment must fail because proposed new subsection (1B) requires that we are bound.

One of the reasons that I and others are very keen we leave this aspect of the EU and its political agenda is because the EU intends its laws to have universal application. This means that they do not apply to just intra-EU cross-border family matters. The EU laws must apply to all cases with no other EU involvement—so, at present, a London/New York family or a London/Sydney couple are bound by EU law. This deals with several areas such as divorce jurisdiction and the inability to bring claims for reasonable needs on a divorce settlement. If the amendment is allowed, we will have cases before the UK courts which have no EU aspect—because we will have left the EU—but in which one party could apply for a preliminary ruling to the European court where it suited their litigation advantage. One can imagine the astonishment of lawyers in, for example, New York or Sydney, saying, “But you, the UK, left the EU several years ago in 2019. Why is this still being referred to the EU and subject to EU law?” Today we must lay to rest, once and for all, any suggestion that the distinctive area of family law should alone be bound by European court decisions.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the difficulty with having been in this House for a number of years is that all these debates come round and round. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was right in saying that this is the first time we have been faced with sweeping powers for Governments to reform public bodies by secondary legislation. He may remember that one of the first acts of the coalition Government in 2010 was to introduce the Public Bodies Bill. I vividly remember the debates on that Bill because it gave sweeping powers to the Government to abolish public bodies by statutory instrument. Because it is the job of the Opposition to oppose draconian attempts by Governments to seize Henry VIII powers, those of us on this side of the House made exactly the same speech as the noble Lord, who was then sitting on the Bench opposite, has made, saying why that should not happen.

There was then one of those classic showdowns between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. From memory, it centred on whether the Youth Justice Board, which at that time was threatened with abolition, should be capable of being abolished and whether it should be done by primary or secondary legislation. We all thought that was a very bad idea because it was doing such a brilliant job of dealing with the problem of young offender institutions. I believe we saved the Youth Justice Board, and all the brilliant developments in penal policy that we have seen in this country in the last eight years, which have been such a phenomenal success, are no doubt due to its survival at the insistence of the House of Lords in 2010.

The proposal put forward by the noble Lord is all immensely worthy and I obviously support everything he has said. The power grab by the Government which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who I see is now back in his place, is trying to undertake is utterly reprehensible. I thought I heard the noble Baroness say earlier that the Government are prepared to move on this. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have been speaking so that we can bank this great act of liberalism on the part of the noble Lord. It will be the first one that we have heard since he assumed his current place but we would welcome it greatly.

I simply note that in the great scheme of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, this is a small issue. It is a classic House of Lords issue where we will probably achieve a great victory. It will make no difference whatever in the great scheme of things but I suppose that is why we are here.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to take the place of my noble friend Lord O’Donnell, who unfortunately cannot be here, to make it clear that there are quite a few others on these Benches who share his views. I would not be so unwise as to talk about the collectivity of Cross-Benchers—I have been around long enough to know that that does not exist—but there are quite a few, and for the same reason. I hope that when he comes to reply to this debate, the Minister will not again trot out the “housemaid’s baby” argument that he has been using all evening—that it is a very small one and nothing terrible is going to happen, et cetera. We are talking here about some quite significant decisions which, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, have invariably, and quite correctly, in the past been taken by primary legislation.

I know—this is very welcome—that in her Mansion House speech the Prime Minister rather reduced the number of public bodies that might have to be created following our leaving. She has recognised that we would do much better to stay in a number of the public bodies that already exist in the European Union, and we will see whether that bears fruit in the negotiations. That might reduce the list but it does not remove the problem. Therefore, this amendment deserves wide support from all round the Committee. It would be an extremely unwelcome and dangerous precedent if we started delegating the powers to set up these public bodies to a government Minister with only a resolution available and the nuclear option to stop it. I support the amendment.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was kind enough to refer to my amendment, which was probably misgrouped at an earlier stage when we were discussing Euratom, I wish to underline the points that he makes. At that time I asked the Minister to set out for Parliament the approach to the EU agencies that the Government were going to take in the negotiations. Frankly, the noble Lord was far too dismissive of that approach, and it would do him some good now if he were to say that at some point during the course of the Bill the Government will set out the line that they will take. After all, as has been said, the Prime Minister has set out her line in relation to some of those agencies. Unfortunately, within 48 hours, the EU has effectively said, “Sorry, that is not on”—not only for the post-transition period but for the transition period itself. While we were continuing to follow the rules and procedures of those agencies, we would no longer take part in their activities. We have an issue here.

I was a bit diffident about the coalition’s Public Bodies Bill—I did not want to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who has been so kind to me—but, as my noble friend said, the achievement of the House of Lords was to knock out an enormous schedule. The Chief Whip, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill at that time—he is now in his place—looks less fraught with this Bill than he did when he was dealing with the Public Bodies Bill. In the end he wisely convinced his colleagues that he had to drop the huge schedule that gave carte blanche powers to the Government to abolish or tweak the responsibilities of a host of public bodies. That Bill was to abolish bodies or alter their remit; this Bill is to set up entirely new bodies. Unless we do that knowing what the overall approach is, this House cannot give the Government that degree of power.

Mention has been made of the new environmental body. Strictly speaking, under this clause as it currently stands, the Government would be able to establish, under secondary legislation, the kind of body that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is no longer in his place, was arguing for earlier—a body so powerful it could sanction other public bodies, including the Government, if it was able to reproduce the powers that presently rest with the European Commission. That is an enormous power, which this House would not allow the Executive arm of government on its own without primary legislation conducted through the two Houses.

I recognise that there is a timescale problem for the Government, but might it be possible to set up some of these bodies in shadow form? If there are 10 bodies, as the noble Lord suggests, there may be a need at least to stop the process before the final passage of this Bill. To have permanent public bodies to regulate large swathes of our public life, industry and personal behaviour—even if there are only a dozen of them—would require primary legislation. This House needs to assert that it does and the Government need to accept that.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. This is an area where a dispute resolution procedure will have to be agreed, and that is currently part of the negotiations.

I will continue with the point I was making; there were many frankly authoritative contributions to this debate. I cannot pre-empt the negotiations, nor can I disadvantage the UK’s position in these negotiations by giving premature guarantees at this time.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Could the noble Baroness answer the question that was posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern? She seems to think that this will be a matter for negotiation. However, if the Government were to rule that we would bring within the scope of the Bill European laws which had been adopted but whose date of entry into effect fell after the exit date, you would not need to negotiate at all. Have not the Government enough things to negotiate about?

[Baroness Goldie]

With respect, I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I am coming to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

I assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to seek the best possible deal for the UK and that the Government continue to undertake a huge amount of preparatory work relating to the UK’s exit from the EU under all scenarios. This includes correcting any deficiencies that could arise from withdrawal in relation to the regulation of clinical trials where the UK’s exit from the EU would result in the retained EU law which governs the regimes being deficient or not operating effectively. The application date of this regulation is linked to a new EU portal and database being in place. As a number of your Lordships have observed, this has been delayed on multiple occasions, and the latest intelligence suggests that it will apply from March 2020. Perhaps I may clarify for the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that, for that reason, it is almost certain that this regulation will not be caught by Clause 3 of the Bill. The existing UK legislation, based on the current EU clinical trials directive, will be corrected using the—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

It would be totally appropriate and, indeed, necessary to do so in the circumstances. We are in a difficult position in that we are trying to plan for all eventualities. It is one of those powers that we hope we will never use because, of course, we want, and seek, a good agreement with the EU.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

There is a different eventuality using the same example that the noble Lord gave—namely, the eventuality of the Government’s proposal for what I think is called an implementation phase; most of us call it a transition or standstill phase—lasting about two years. Is he suggesting that we might be in breach of our WTO obligations if we reach an agreement with the European Union on that basis, because it is about to be reached, is it not?

[Lord Callanan]

No, I am not suggesting that we might be in breach of our international obligations. However, as the noble Lord knows, we are currently negotiating for the implementation period, and as soon as we have an agreement—I hope within the next few weeks—we will be sure to report back to the noble Lord and others.

For those reasons, which I set out earlier, the Government therefore cannot accept these amendments to Clause 8. The power can be used only for the specific purpose of ensuring continuing compliance with international obligations to which this House has already consented and which would be affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It is available only for a limited period of time, and any further restriction risks increasing the primary legislative burden on this House and weakening the UK’s promise to the rest of the world that we are ready and able to honour our commitments.

However, having said all that, I repeat the point I made at the start of this debate: that we are listening carefully to what noble Lords have said, that we will look closely at how we can resolve many of the concerns that have been raised by noble Lords throughout this debate, and that we will come back to the issue on Report. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I will allow the Prime Minister’s words to speak for themselves.

It is in the interests of consumers and industry in both the UK and the EU to maintain the freest and most frictionless trade possible in vehicles and automotive products after exit.

I apologise that have I spoken at length about issues of constitutional significance, but—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, the Minister seems to be reaching the end of his remarks. In replying to matters raised on the individual areas of transport, sport and so on, he has simply ignored the fact that most of those who spoke to these areas talked about the need for rapid movement of people, rapid access and no impediment to such movements. Could he perhaps say something about that? At the moment, the Government seem to have a blank sheet in front of them on that. We have not been told a single thing about the immigration rules that will apply after 29 March 2019—not one word has been said other than that it is going to take a lot longer for the Government to consult everyone before they can tell us what they are doing. All the areas that have been referred to in the debate this morning involve the movement of people. Will the Minister please try to fill that out a little?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 196.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I think it is fairly reasonable as someone putting forward Amendment 150 that I should be allowed to speak.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I just want to get Amendment 196 on the record, because it makes helpful points which should be taken into account by noble Lords when we come to devise a composite amendment on Report. That is why I am anxious to speak and I am sorry if I have upset the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.

We have had many excellent speeches. I think the three by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and my noble friend Lord Reid are among the best I have heard on this Bill and perhaps even since I have been a Member of this House. I fully support what they said.

The purpose of Amendment 196 is to build on the Grieve amendment that is now incorporated in the Bill. En passant I will say from this side of the House how much I respect the bravery of the Conservative MPs who voted for that amendment and put the national interest first. If they had not done that, a lot of the point of our proceedings would have been removed—so I respect them enormously.

The merits of Amendment 196—I will be very brief—are, first, that it specifies a date by which the Government have to produce their withdrawal agreement: 31 October 2018. That would prevent any attempt to bounce a last-minute decision through Parliament. Secondly, it attempts to deal with two eventualities: not just the eventuality of no agreement and no deal being reached in Brussels but also a failure on the part of the House of Commons to agree to and adopt the resolution that the Government will put forward seeking to endorse that agreement.

It does not give the House of Lords a veto. I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said: these matters fundamentally have to be decided by the Commons. This amendment allows the Commons to consider a whole series of options, including the extension of Article 50.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle]

My noble friend is making a good point, but I think that the vacuum that we potentially face is the risk of a vague political declaration that gives us absolutely no idea what the eventual economic relationship between Britain and the EU will be. In those political circumstances, one might want to say to the Government that we have to extend the period allowed under Article 50 and be given a much better idea of where this course that they are so in favour of is leading us. On that basis, we might then consider whether the final deal should be put to the people in a referendum. The risk is that this declaration will provide the opportunity for misleading the British public about what is involved.

That is all that I have to say. I am wholly in favour of all the amendments in this group and the sentiments behind them. It is wonderful that there is such support around the House for them, but we need to think through the precise terms of what I hope this House will eventually pass on Report.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords—

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 10th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I do not know the answer to that because what I have been told by Gibraltar House, in particular by Fabian Picardo, the Chief Minister, is that there have been careful discussions with various Ministers, particularly the Minister for Exiting the EU, and that there will be protection during the transition period. There are also careful negotiations between Gibraltar and the UK on what happens after Brexit takes place. Those are not finalised, but the Gibraltarians are confident that they will get what they want because the Government have said that they wish to ensure the seamless continuation of the existing market access into the UK and to enhance it where possible.

Perhaps I may move on. The UK Government have been clear and insistent in stating that they are negotiating for the whole of the UK, including Gibraltar, and are standing shoulder to shoulder with the Gibraltarians in their unswerving commitment to the UK/Gibraltar relationship. However, I would add that the threat from Spain is real and continuing. Only in the past week or 10 days, another threat has come from Madrid about the exercise of the veto. However, the Gibraltar Government have accepted the assurances of the United Kingdom Government that the existing market access arrangements between the UK and Gibraltar will not be affected by the exclusion of Gibraltar in any sort of veto exercise by Spain during the transition period. Moreover, as I have said, there are continuing discussions about the position post Brexit and there remains, I have to say, a continuing threat from Spain. Perhaps unlike the noble Lords across from me in the Chamber, I would like to congratulate the Government on their approach to Gibraltar and how they are working with the Gibraltarians.

Gibraltar is a strong and faithful friend of the United Kingdom—it is important to remember that—and it deserves to be looked after properly. I can assure the Committee, however, that everything I have seen leads me to believe that the United Kingdom is acting entirely fairly and correctly. It is doing its best, and it is a good best, to make sure that the arrangements for Gibraltar during the transition period—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for giving way. I shall speak in support of the amendment before it is withdrawn, but if I have understood the noble and learned Baroness rightly—I have also received a letter from the representative of Gibraltar in London—everything she has said relates solely to the relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. I have to say that that is not the heart of the matter. The relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom has existed for 350 years and is not affected one way or the other by our membership of the European Union, so the Government are generously giving the Gibraltarians back what they already have.

What I should like to know is whether the noble and learned Baroness, because she is much better informed than I am on this matter, is aware of what has been agreed for the transitional period and the period beyond on the relationship between Gibraltar and the rest of the European Union.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I can be corrected on this, but I think I am right in saying that much of what was arranged between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom on the business between the two countries was directed by the EU, and consequently it is important that the arrangements between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar make it absolutely clear that all trade between the two countries would continue unimpeded. I know no more about what is being said about Gibraltar and the EU than, I suspect, anyone else in the Chamber other than the Minister, because I assume that all of this is subject to the negotiations. But the United Kingdom Government have promised that they will stand by Gibraltar and that they will make sure that they are negotiating for Gibraltar as well as the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom.

I am not in a position to say any more than that, but the amendment was necessary when I tabled it. It is clear that it is not necessary now, but I was not asked to withdraw it. I would not have dreamed of accepting such a request. I was told that it was not necessary for it to go to a vote and that the Gibraltar Government would prefer us not to vote on it, for perfectly obvious reasons. If relations between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom Government are as good as I am told they are, I do not have the slightest desire to rock the boat. I do not propose to take this amendment any further beyond Committee. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Chidgey]

I can only say to the noble Lord that it is quite obvious that we have a long way to go to reach an agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain. It is worth remembering that the issue of the sovereignty of Gibraltar, which is with the UK, has been set in stone and not necessarily agreed by Spain. The offer of any talks about Gibraltar’s future with Spain are set in stone to be entirely dependent on the agreement of Gibraltar. However, further than that we have not gone.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I declare an interest in this matter because I was a part of the accession negotiating team rather a long time ago and responsible for the conditions that related to Gibraltar. Subsequently, in the early 1980s, I was sent to Madrid by the then Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe, Lord Hurd of Westwell, to ensure that the Spanish Government opened the border before they tried to get the British Parliament to ratify their treaty of accession. So I have had a little bit of experience of this.

We should be absolutely clear that Gibraltar’s status depends automatically from our membership; it was not negotiated or negotiable, because Gibraltar was a European territory for whose foreign affairs we were responsible. There is no question of it being negotiated—I have to admit that it was slightly easier that Spain was not a member of the European Union at the time we joined. Where we wished not to apply the treaty as it was drafted in 1956 to a European territory for which we were responsible—namely, the sovereign base areas in Cyprus—we had to negotiate an opt-out because, otherwise, they would have been automatically included in all the provisions of our accession treaty.

It follows from this, I think, and this is where I turn to the Minister, the fount of all wisdom, that on the day we leave—not the end of the transitional period—Gibraltar’s status within the European Union must cease. It will no longer be a European territory for whose external relations a member state is responsible, because, if the Government have their way, the United Kingdom will not be a member state of the European Union on 30 March 2019. I support the amendment because it is still pretty necessary, but can the Minister tell us how the transitional provisions, which relate to a United Kingdom outside the European Union—that is the determined wish of his Government—will be affected from 30 March? Which provision in the agreement on the transitional period reached in Brussels last week—a very welcome agreement—will cover Gibraltar, which is the dependent territory of a country which is outside the European Union?

Going slightly wider, we have to look beyond the relationship between Gibraltar and the UK, important as that is and welcome as the Government’s assurances to the Government of Gibraltar are—they are extremely welcome—to the relationship between Gibraltar in the future and the European Union as a whole. That will not be easy, frankly. Anybody who thinks it will be easy to negotiate ain’t seen nothing yet: it is not going to be easy, it is going to be very problematic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

Of course I understand those concerns and why the industry needs to be properly regulated. That is being done and we are working with Gibraltar to ensure consistent regulation across the two territories. But of course that is not a matter for the Bill, I am pleased to say.

I hope that, with those reassurances, I have addressed the noble and learned Baroness’s concerns—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but he has left us—and, through us, the Gibraltarians—in a degree of uncertainty. I imagine he will have difficulty replying to this, but presumably he does not think we can negotiate better terms for Gibraltar’s access to the EU 27 than we negotiate for ourselves. That would be a pretty startling victory for the Government, which might just be beyond their powers. If that is so, and as the Prime Minister admits that our access to the European Union 27’s market will be less good after the end of the transitional period than it has been while we are a member, presumably Gibraltar will have to take a hit too.

The second question, which the Minister has not addressed at all, concerns the movement of people across the border between Gibraltar and Andalusia. What does he envisage for that? Presumably, the immigration Bill, which may one day cease to be a mirage floating out there, always several months away from us but never quite attained, will one day be sitting on our Order Paper and will have to regulate how Gibraltar treats migrants or other people crossing that border who currently and during the transitional period are covered by free movement. What are the Government’s plans for that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I support this amendment, which is in my name, too, and also Amendment 343, which contains more of the same objective. The purpose of the amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said, is to remove from the Bill the date of 29 March 2019 for its entry into force. Putting that date in the Bill is neither necessary nor desirable—and that, clearly, was the view of the Government when they tabled the Bill because, as the noble Baroness said, there was no mention of that date in the Bill at all when it was tabled last April. It was subsequently inserted—for reasons that I shall not dwell on, because I do not particularly want to speculate about dealings within the Government’s party; they were clearly something to do with that—only at a later stage, at which point there was a lot of rejoicing from those who believe that leaving the European Union at any cost is a good and noble objective. The formulation was then watered down a bit by the House of Commons before it sent it to us—but I suggest that it should be removed altogether.

The Government have basically dealt with the issue of whether the date is necessary. It is perfectly clear that it is not necessary, otherwise why did they table a Bill without it? But is it desirable? On desirability, I would argue strongly against it, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. For one thing, it risks closing off one option that exists under Article 50 and will exist all the way through to 29 March: namely, that the EU 27 and the UK might, by common accord, wish to prolong the two-year cut-off date from the time of notification of our intention to withdraw. I do not intend to speculate under what circumstances such a wish might arise, because they are manifold. It could be for a very short period of a purely technical kind due to an absence of time to conclude all the work that needed to be done, or it could be for a longer period, which would obviously have rather more important implications. The Brexit committee in the other House has raised that possibility; it has canvassed it and I do not think that it is wise for us to put in this Bill something that contradicts it.

The point at issue is not whether such a postponement of the two-year deadline might or might not be in the national interest. We will only know that when the debate on it takes place. I argue that to foreclose the option now, so as to make it difficult—probably impossible—to proceed in that way is not sensible; rather, it is irresponsible. I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that the Government have no intention whatever of making use of the postponement option. Her script can be easily imagined—and it is of course the Government’s entire right and privilege to say that. However, that is different from trying to bind Parliament to say it, which is what they are seeking to do with this provision: to lock us all into the Brexit tower and throw the key out of the window. That is never usually a very good way of proceeding.

So I hope that, on further consideration, the Government will agree. All they are being asked to do is revert to the original form of the Bill which they themselves introduced last July and to have no reference in it to the date of 29 March.

[The Duke of Wellington (Con)]

I support Amendment 334, a cross-party amendment to which I have added my name, and which goes with Amendment 343. As other noble Lords have said, it is a modest amendment which simply restores the original wording of the Bill. As has also been said, here and in the other place, the Bill is about process not outcome. The amendment makes no attempt to delay the date on which we leave the EU. I believe that we will be told by the Government that one justification for putting the date in the Bill is to remove uncertainty. There are many uncertainties ahead of us, post Brexit, but there is surely no uncertainty about the date on which we leave the EU. It is clear that, under Article 50, we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 unless it seems at the time to be in the national interest for the Government to request a limited extension or delay in order to complete the process of withdrawing.

It could be that the withdrawal and implementation Bill has not yet passed through both Houses of Parliament. The European Parliament may not yet have passed it. There could still be matters to negotiate. There could be various reasons, but the point is that it could be in the national interest, at the time, to seek a delay. I am sure that a small delay would be granted by the other 27 member states if we were near the end of the process. I am aware that an amendment tabled in another place by Sir Oliver Letwin gave Ministers the power to change the exit date. However, I believe it is right—this is the fundamental point of the amendment—for this House to ask the other place to think again about the necessity of putting the date in the Bill. Is that necessary? Is it expedient? This amendment and the related amendments are intended to give the Government, and Parliament, greater flexibility. I hope the Government will accepted them in the spirit in which they are intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She seems to have overlooked the fact that the Government will be perfectly capable of putting a date into the implementation Bill, which they have told the House will be brought forward before 29 March and which will be after the conclusion of the negotiations, and that will not present the same problems as doing it now. She also, if I may say so, has not dealt with the fact that it is frankly irrelevant whether, when the Government tabled the Bill, the non-mention of 29 March left it all to Ministers or left it all to Parliament. What is relevant is that the Government did not see the need to put 29 March in the Bill at all.

[Baroness Goldie]

Turning to the last point first, I have, for the sake of the noble Lord, tried to clarify where the Government were—as he rightly indicates—where they went, and why they went to that position. I cannot add to that: that is why we are in the position that we currently are. I will cover his other point about the connection with the implementation Bill, and I hope he will show me forbearance and let me deal with it.

I turn to Amendments 334 and 343, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which seek largely to bring the Bill back to the state of its original drafting. However, as I have already set out, the Bill was not acceptable to the elected Chamber in that state. Instead, an acceptable compromise was reached that does two things: it simultaneously diminishes the power of Ministers in exercising delegated powers and increases the role of Parliament. It also introduced flexibility in varying the date, if required. It is not the case, as the noble Baroness suggested, that it is a straitjacket. That fear of rigidity and inflexibility was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in relation to the hypothetical extension of the Article 50 period. If that were to happen, exit day would then be linked to when the treaty ceased to apply, and the flexibility to vary the date is then expressly provided for in the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was worried that the insertion of a specific date in the Bill would somehow prejudice the Government’s ability in the negotiations. However, it is the very flexibility that is now in the Bill that enables the Government to respond sensibly and responsibly to whatever the negotiations may produce. That was also a fear on the part of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat and others, but the Government argue that, far from the flexibility prejudicing the negotiations, it facilitates and provides elasticity in the conduct of the negotiations. Given that, I regret that I am unable to support the noble Baroness and the Opposition Front Bench in attempting to overturn the existing provisions of the Bill. We believe that what emerged from the other place strikes the right balance.

I understand that there are concerns regarding the interplay between the implementation period and exit day. However, as I will reiterate shortly, this is not a Bill designed to legislate for the implementation period.

I move now to Amendment 345A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which would remove part of Clause 14(4)(a). It always distresses me to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but not only am I not departing from my script—as he was speaking, I was busily adding to it. With his amendment, if the date at which the treaties cease to apply to the UK is different from the date we have put in the Bill, Ministers could amend the definition of exit day to any new date and not just the new date on which the treaties will cease to apply, as the Bill currently prescribes. The Government are conforming to international law, and we want to keep the Bill in line with that position. That is why we are unable to accept the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendments 344 and 346, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, take a different approach, including seeking to insert a new clause which would make the exercise of powers under Clause 14(4) subject to a parliamentary resolution. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 already provides explicitly for a parliamentary vote on any changes to exit day. This was part of the compromise reached in the other place and is, I suggest, an appropriate level of scrutiny.

Amendment 334A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, attempts to shift the setting of exit day into the statute enacted for the purpose of Clause 9(1) of this Bill. I understand the noble Lord’s amendment to mean that he wishes exit day to be set in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred a moment or two ago. With respect, I think we are familiar with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when it comes to leaving the EU, and I appreciate that within this House he is not alone. However, with regards to Clause 14, the failure to set an exit day for the purposes of this Bill has no bearing on whether or not we leave the EU, but such a failure certainly affects the manner in which we leave. If we cannot set an exit day, many functions of the Bill which hinge upon it—such as the repeal of the European Communities Act and the snapshot of EU law—would simply not occur. That would render the Bill largely redundant, preventing us from providing a fully functioning statute book and creating a void leading to total legal uncertainty when we leave—but we shall still leave.

Amendment 335, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, attempts to set exit day at the end of the implementation period. I can appreciate the argument made here, which has been mirrored by some of the contributions made today. However, it is not the role of this Bill to legislate for the implementation period; that is for the forthcoming withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. To do so in this Bill would link its operation inextricably to the ongoing negotiations, which is not the intention of this Bill. This Bill is intended to stand part and is—I have used the phrase previously—a mechanism or device whereby we avoid the yawning chasm which would occur if a huge bundle of very important law disappeared into a black hole. We cannot allow that to happen.

I accept that Amendment 345, tabled by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, is well intentioned. However, I suggest that it is unnecessary. I believe that the intention behind this amendment is to ensure that exit day can be changed if Parliament resolves to instruct the Government to request an extension of the Article 50 process—this was the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred. But as I pointed out earlier, if the Government were to make such a request, and that request was granted, the power would be engaged by virtue of subsections (3) and (4) anyway, so it is covered. I also reiterate a point made in an earlier debate that, fundamentally, it is our belief that we should not extend the Article 50 period and that this Bill is not the vehicle to raise questions of whose role it is to act on the international plane.

I finish by quoting directly from the Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill, which I know we all hold in high regard. It said that, on exit day:

“The revised definition of ‘exit day’ in the Bill sets appropriate limits on ministerial discretion and provides greater clarity as to the relationship between ‘exit day’ as it applies in domestic law and the date on which the UK will leave the European Union as a matter of international law. It also allows the Government a degree of flexibility to accommodate any change to the date on which EU treaties cease to apply to the UK”.


I realise that I may not have persuaded all of your Lordships of the Government’s position but I would at least hope that noble Lords will have some regard to the committee’s assessment of this issue. On that note, I hope the noble Baroness will agree not to press her amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked a pertinent question. He said that the Government have indicated in the draft agreement published recently that certain provisions apply, and he referred to a particular paragraph. I merely remind him that the Government have said before that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and the exit day power gives the Government the flexibility to reflect whatever is agreed in the final text of Article 168.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 10th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I am in favour of the amendment. I shall also add a bit of history that has not been mentioned so far. This time last year we were considering the Article 50 triggering Bill. An amendment was moved by a number of us that was designed both to produce a meaningful process for the end of the negotiations and to include within it the circumstances in which there was no deal. That amendment was passed by a very large majority in this House. It was sent to the other place where it was rejected in a pretty perfunctory way by, of course, the Parliament that was sitting before the general election, and in which the Conservative Party had an overall majority. So it is no good saying the Government are not opposed to a parliamentary statutory decision-making process if there is no deal. They are opposed to it; they opposed it only a year ago. So if this amendment is being brought forward now, it is because the Government have form on this matter.

I would like the Government to recognise that, having lost the vote on the meaningful process in the other place to Mr Dominic Grieve’s excellent amendment, it is more sensible to accept the statutory process for dealing with any outcome to the negotiations, whether that be a deal or no deal or whether it is the case, as I rather suspect now, that the Government have stood their mantra on its head and are now saying a bad deal is better than no deal. But whichever way we look at it, let us be quite sure that Parliament has its say. That is why I support the amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was a little modest, because it was he who was chairing the European Union Committee at the time when it produced its excellent analysis of what it would mean for there to be no deal and for us to leave on WTO terms. We would have to rapidly set up customs posts around our market. Indeed, as he said, it would also mean no protection or continuation of residence, work or health rights for UK citizens living in the EU or, indeed, for EU citizens resident here. In the latter case, of course, we could pass domestic legislation to safeguard their position but we could not do the same to help UK nationals abroad because no deal would also mean no transition period.

I am sure that for business, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has just spelled out, that would be a catastrophic outcome. It would mean that in addition to what it would mean for their order books—a rush to set up customs, VAT and all the other stuff that goes with that—I maintain that it would entail a jolt to our economy that would make 2008 look like a kiddies’ party. So a decision to depart from the EU in those circumstances is one to be taken by Parliament, not by the Prime Minister nor even by her Cabinet. The amendment is aimed to ensure that any such decision—coming out without a deal—would be made by Parliament, and bring the no deal scenario within the ambit of the amended Clause 9(1).

We accept that the Government are working very hard to ensure that we do not depart without a deal, and I trust that in those circumstances, they will accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

I cannot give the noble Baroness that commitment. I am explaining the amendment and will come to the other implications in a second.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Perhaps the Minister can give an easier commitment, which is that the Government will use the period between now and Report to draft a provision which has that effect and catches a no-deal situation. I am sure we should be delighted. He has a whole team of draftsmen at his beck and call, so perhaps he could make good use of their Easter recess.

[Lord Callanan]

I am delighted to hear that I have all these people at my beck and call; it seems to have escaped my notice.

I remind the Committee that we are confident that the UK and the EU can reach a positive deal on our future partnership, as we believe that this is in our mutual interest. However, a responsible Government must be prepared for all possible outcomes. To invalidate the Clause 7 power in the absence of an agreement would eradicate a crucial part of our preparations. Putting the issue to one side, I respectfully disagree with the intention of the amendment—that parliamentary approval should be required to leave the EU without a deal. There should be one fundamental fact sitting behind all these debates: the UK is leaving the EU. As noble Lords have heard me say before in Committee, and on which I have been questioned at length, the decision to hold a referendum was put to the electorate in the 2015 general election. That decision was then put into statute in the European Union (Referendum) Act. The referendum was held and delivered a majority in favour of leaving the EU. Parliament then consented to act on that verdict through the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.

I do not normally read the Observer, but as Keir Starmer had given an interview I thought it would be appropriate for me to read what he had to say on behalf of the Labour Party. It had some interesting quotes. He said:

“Article 50 was triggered a year ago. It expires in 52 weeks and a few days, and I don’t think there is any realistic prospect of it being revoked”.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee: 11th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. One of the primary purposes of the Bill is to promote legal certainty: I cannot understand how it can be anything other than destructive to legal certainty for Parliament to enact a Bill that includes Clause 6, which removes the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union from exit day—defined as 29 March 2019—when the Government’s own intention, and that of the European Union, is that there should be a transitional period during which the Court of Justice will retain jurisdiction, and during which we will agree to that jurisdiction.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I too support this amendment. I will be very brief. It seems that if the Government try to maintain the text as it is they are basically marching Parliament up to the top of the hill in order to march it down again—they are also marching Parliament to the top of the hill to defend a position on which they themselves ran up the white flag some weeks ago. Frankly, this is not a sensible way of proceeding. It will make a mockery of Parliament if it is asked to legislate something which it knows not even the British Government want to happen. Surely, the right answer is to remove Clause 6, as the amendment proposes.

If by any chance everything collapses or changes, or the Government somehow persuade the European Commission to draft the text in a different way, it will be perfectly possible for the Government to put it in the withdrawal and implementation Bill that will come forward after the conclusion of negotiations. Meanwhile, we should start with the standstill as it has been agreed and without this provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I often think of Sir Thomas More, but not on this occasion.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I find it rather hard from the Cross Benches and as a non-politician to make this point, but I wonder whether the Minister has considered what the Government are proposing to do. They are proposing to offer in an Act of Parliament signed into law by the Queen something which they know is not going to happen. They have offered that up; their supporters will, no doubt, rise cheering to their feet; and then, three or six months later, they will repeal that part of the Act, at which point there will be cries of betrayal and perfidy—and those are probably rather mild words compared with the ones that will be used by the Daily Mail and others. Have the Minister and his colleagues not given any thought to that? Is not the simple thing to do to accept the amendment, and then there will be no betrayal and no perfidy, or if there is it will have been done already?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

There is no betrayal and no perfidy, but I feel misrepresented by the noble Lord because he said “knowing that there will be an agreement”. We do not know for certain that there will be an agreement. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Of course, we have an aspiration; we seek to secure the implementation period, and when we do we will then legislate for that in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. Meanwhile, this Bill is designed and intended to accommodate the situation in which there may not be such an agreement.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 18th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, many of the arguments we have heard on these amendments almost boil down to saying that nothing can ever be changed for the better. This is, indeed, a peculiar psychological quirk of human beings, but it is not borne out by history. As my noble friend Lord Lamont said, if this amendment is passed and we are in a customs union but not in the European Union then the UK will be obliged to operate a system of external tariffs with no say in setting them. The UK would not be able to enter into new trade agreements with other countries around the world and would be bound by the rules and standards of the European Court of Justice—and that would apply even in the domestic economy. The UK would be significantly worse off than it is today.

A customs union is, by definition, a form of discrimination. Ricardo, Cobden, Gladstone: those great liberals would be spinning in their grave at the thought that their descendant party today is in favour of this form of trade discrimination. The answer to growing protectionism in the world is not to retreat inside a protectionist bloc of slow-growing countries that constitute just 10% of the world’s future economic growth, but to seek free trade opportunities wherever we can find them. The answer is not to discriminate against African and Asian economies, but to be open to all. It is not to turn our back on our friends in the Commonwealth, eager to do trade deals with us in this week of all weeks. It is not to yearn to,

“keep a-hold of Nurse

For fear of finding something worse”.

It is to embrace a model not of harmonisation and identical regulation designed to prevent and extinguish innovation, but one of mutual recognition, to learn how to achieve better ends by better means. It is not to rely on a wall of protective tariffs to keep the world at bay, but to play to our strengths as a common-law, English-speaking, scientifically advanced nation of shopkeepers and entrepreneurs. It is not to be parochial and regional, but to be ambitiously global. And it is not to listen to millionaire loveys and Trekkies gathering in Camden.

I am genuinely surprised that some in the parties opposite want to discriminate against Africa, with an average agricultural product tariff of 14.8%, 25% on sugar refining, 20% on animal products and 31.7% on dairy products.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Viscount Ridley]

I thought there were to be no interventions.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I just want to ask the noble Lord where he gets his idea that being in a customs union with the European Union will mean imposing tariffs on Africa when the European Union has zero tariffs on all African countries.

[A noble Lord]

Middle stump!

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 30th April 2018 Lords Chamber

Whatever our party affiliation, our duty as parliamentarians is to our country and our conscience. Those who are privileged to serve in Parliament, whether in this House or the House of Commons, are the heirs of a very long and noble tradition that is fundamental to our liberties and must not be betrayed. It is our duty to assert the primacy of Parliament over Ministers. It is in that spirit and with that purpose that I beg to move this new clause.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment also bears my name and the names of other noble Lords. I will focus my brief remarks on the eventuality of the United Kingdom facing the prospect of leaving the EU in March 2019 without any deal having been reached between the EU and the UK on the terms of a withdrawal treaty, or on the framework for a new relationship between them. I will, too, set out a pretty compelling case for this eventuality to be covered if a parliamentary approval process is to be genuinely meaningful.

This House is no stranger to debate on the no-deal situation. When we considered the Bill authorising the Government to trigger Article 50 before the end of March 2017, we voted by a substantial majority for a meaningful process that covered the no-deal eventuality. The other House, where at that time the Government had a single-party majority, rejected that amendment, and we did not insist. We must, however, face the fact that this Government have never made any commitment to give Parliament any say on a no-deal outcome, although they have committed themselves—rather inadequately—to giving Parliament a say if a deal is struck. The rest of this amendment deals with those circumstances. In the no-deal scenario, there is a void—a vacuum. That is not really tolerable for such an eventuality.

I do not intend to speculate about what circumstances might give rise to this eventuality—that would be a bit of a mug’s game six months before the end of a negotiation. The Government seem to have put away their rather foolish mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal, which I welcome. Suffice it to say that until the final moment of the Brexit negotiations, no deal remains a possibility and needs to be provided for in any meaningful process of parliamentary approval.

On the substance of no deal, I say only that there is now a much wider understanding of the fact that it would be seriously damaging to our economy, as we fell back on WTO terms. The Business Committee of another place brought that out very cogently as recently as last week. There are plenty of other disadvantages outside the trade field if we were to find ourselves going over a cliff edge in March 2019, but this is not the occasion nor the time to have that debate about what the consequences of no deal would be. What needs to be debated today, and I hope decided, is to set out the fact, as subsection (8) of the proposed new clause provides, that Parliament and not the Executive needs to be the ultimate arbiter in such circumstances. I hope that we will establish that in this House at the end of this debate.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, my name is also on this amendment, and I wish to speak briefly on the role that this Chamber needs to play. We are a revising Chamber and we have spent some time looking at the detail of this extremely complex and important proposal to leave the European Union. We also have to be concerned with constitutional propriety, and we are rightly concerned that a referendum which was partly won on an argument to restore parliamentary sovereignty should not be allowed to lead to greater executive power.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, the Prime Minister has promised that Parliament would be allowed a meaningful vote on negotiations once they are completed. The Secretary of State for DExEU has promised that the resolution presented to Parliament will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship with the EU. That should provide some reassurance against fears that most difficult issues are likely to be left for further discussion after the UK has formally the EU.

This amendment puts those promises into legislative form. It spells out the deadlines required to ensure that Parliament is permitted to scrutinise whatever is agreed in good time before the end of March next year. The amendment requires Commons approval by November 30 and Royal Assent by 31 January, and provides a backstop for ensuring parliamentary sovereignty if no agreement is reached by the Government by the end of February. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is quoted in today’s Daily Mail as saying that these are “false deadlines”. I hope that in replying as the Minister he will tell us, if these deadlines are to be disregarded, how the UK will get through the constitutional requirements for leaving the EU by the end of March 2019 and what deadlines he might propose instead.

We are acutely aware of divisions within the Cabinet and the Conservative Party about what form of customs arrangements ought to be acceptable. That is a fundamental issue which is not yet decided but which the Government ought to have resolved, at the latest, by the time that they triggered Article 50 some 18 months ago. In her Mansion House speech two months ago, our Prime Minister admitted that it is in Britain’s national interests to remain associated with many of the EU agencies that hard-line Brexiteers wanted to break away from. She promised in that speech a new security treaty with the EU, to ensure continuing co-operation in combating organised crime and counterterrorism, and a close partnership in foreign policy and defence. But we have been told almost nothing more since then about such important issues or about the compromises of sovereignty in the national interest which they would require. We risk a backlash from all sides when the terms for leaving are sprung at the last minute on an uninformed country.

Ministers have repeatedly assured us that negotiations are well on track, even though they will not tell us what they are doing, and that an agreement can be reached by October—in less than five months’ time. If that is true, this amendment offers no difficulties for the Government; if it is not true and the likelihood is that all that will be agreed by October is a loose statement of principles, with the hard details of our future relationship kicked down the track to be sorted out in the implementation period—as the Government like to call it—after we have left the EU, then Parliament needs to intervene. Leaving the European Union without a clear and detailed agreement on the future relationship would be a disaster for our economy, our foreign policy, our relationship with Ireland and our internal and external security. This amendment guards against that unfortunate outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I have great respect for all the proposers of this amendment. It makes me all the more astonished that they should put forward a clause which could, and very probably would, lead to not one but several constitutional crises. I am reluctant to draw the conclusion that that is the purpose of the new clause, that that is the intention behind the new clause, that so determined are its movers to thwart the will of the British people to leave the European Union that they wish to provoke a constitutional crisis, but that is the perilous outcome to which this new clause opens the door.

My noble friend made a very fine speech, but the new clause which stands in his name goes far beyond the fine sentiments which he addressed. I shall concentrate on just two of its consequences. First, the new clause gives your Lordships’ House a veto on any agreement which the Government have reached and which the other place has endorsed. It is instructive to compare the wording of subsection (1)(b) of the new clause with subsection (3). We have not heard very much so far from the movers of the new clause about its precise terms, so it falls to me to draw your Lordships’ attention to those terms.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The noble Lord is giving us the speech he gave us in the Article 50 Bill, when it was indeed the case that the amendment then moved did not differentiate between the Lords and the Commons. If he looks at this amendment with care, he will see that there is a very clear differentiation and that it is only the Commons that has the right of decision; we have the right of consideration.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

If the noble Lord waits until I have concluded my remarks, I think he will be better able to form a judgment about how careless I have been.

Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that the Government may conclude an agreement only if the draft has been approved by the House of the Commons and has been subject to the consideration of a Motion in your Lordships’ House. The Minister may have something to say about the circumstances in which such a Motion might be considered. It is not a point I intend to dwell on, although there is clearly a possibility that your Lordships may vote not to consider such a Motion.

Subsection (3) of the new clause provides that a withdrawal agreement may be implemented only if it has been approved by an Act of Parliament, and subsection (7) provides that that Act must have received Royal Assent by the end of next January, so the new clause expressly contemplates a situation in which the Government have reached an agreement with the European Union, the House of Commons has approved that agreement, but your Lordships’ House, simply by delaying the passage of the Bill beyond next January, could defy not only the will of the people but the will of the elected Chamber of Parliament. If that would not provide a constitutional crisis, I do not know what would.

The new clause goes on to provide a prescription about what would happen if such a situation were to arise. It proposes that the negotiations should be taken out of the hands of the elected Government of our country and be decided on a resolution of the other place and the consideration of a Motion in your Lordships’ House. I had the great privilege of serving in the other place for 27 years—not quite as long as my noble friend, but almost—and I have the greatest respect for it, but it is not a negotiating body. I do not believe it has ever taken that role upon itself, I do not believe it wants it and nor should it have it. I need hardly add that if this new clause were to become law, the situation would arise that it would immeasurably weaken the Government’s negotiating position with the EU and would make our Government and our country a laughing stock.

The truth of the matter is that, while a great deal has been spoken about the House of Commons—my noble friend talked about the House of Commons—at the end of the day the House of Commons will have its say and the House of Commons will have its way. The House of Commons does not need to be given any guidance by your Lordships’ House as to how it should go about its business. There are many ways in which the House of Commons can achieve that objective, and the House of Commons will do so.

This new clause is thoroughly and fundamentally misconceived. I am afraid that it illustrates the appalling lengths to which die-hard remainers are prepared to go to achieve their aim, and I urge your Lordships to reject it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank all the contributors to this debate. It is right that we have taken the time to discuss it at length, because this amendment has potentially serious implications for delivering a successful Brexit. Of course, I understand why this amendment might look notionally appealing, at least—it triggers a greater role for Parliament should any of the deadlines set by the amendment pass without their terms being met—but let me be very clear; this is not an innocuous, measured amendment. It contains a number of constitutional, practical, legal and political difficulties, all of which we should seek to avoid if we are to leave the EU with the best deal possible, which is what the Government want to achieve. Indeed, this amendment would create a profound constitutional shift in terms of which branch of the state holds the prerogative to act in the international sphere, a point so well made by my noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Howard and by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, from the Labour Benches.

I do not suppose that those who are proposing this amendment are making this suggestion lightly, but I cannot support such a move, as I do not believe that it is in the best interests of the country to redefine the nature of our democracy in this way. It is a well-established feature of our constitution that the Executive represent the country in international diplomacy, and this constitutional arrangement exists for very good practical reasons. In any negotiation, there are judgments to be made as to what can reasonably be achieved. Those judgments can be made only by those engaged on the detail. It would be impossible for negotiators to demonstrate the flexibility necessary for an effective negotiation if they are stripped of their authority to make decisions. That will do nothing but guarantee a bad deal for the UK, which is something I hope we all wish to avoid. If the UK is to be a trusted and effective negotiator, with the EU or anybody else, the Executive branch must be competent to negotiate, just as they are competent to act on their own judgment in other areas of international relations. I speak in strong terms, because I want to demonstrate the seriousness with which the Government take this amendment, its implications and the precedent it will set.

The drafting of the amendment itself is of further concern. It states that a draft of the withdrawal agreement must be approved by the Commons before it can be concluded, but it is not clear what “conclude” means in this context. This may seem a lesser point but noble Lords will understand that we need legal certainty to ensure that the vote occurs at the right time in relation to the process of withdrawing from the EU. We would not want to end up in a perverse situation in which a vote must be offered while negotiations are ongoing, for instance. The vote must happen once the final text has been agreed. Until that point, there would be nothing for Parliament to vote upon, given that ultimately, of course, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to be careful. He is a Member of the European Parliament and knows perfectly well what “conclude” means: it is the moment at which the two parties to an international agreement, having fulfilled all their constitutional requirements, notify one another that the thing can be brought into effect. There is no doubt about that.

[Lord Callanan]

I was a Member of the European Parliament, but I also know that the vote of the European Parliament is in effect a take-it-or-leave-it vote. They do not seek to bind the hands of the Commission negotiators either.

I also question the implications of this amendment on the public’s confidence in our democratic institutions. The scope of proposed new subsection (5) is extremely broad, giving Parliament the power to direct the Government on anything in relation to negotiations: casting back to last week’s debate, it does not even add an “appropriate” or “necessary” restriction. That means directions do not have to be just about negotiating tactics or objectives but could feasibly encompass delaying or thwarting our exit completely, which I believe is the motivation of many of the supporters of this amendment. We should think very carefully about how that could be perceived by the electorate. Such a situation would not be compatible with either the result of the referendum nor the commitments given by many parliamentarians to respect the result. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lamont that this amendment would set a range of arbitrary deadlines and milestones after which Parliament may give binding directions to the Government, up to and including an attempt to overturn the referendum result itself.

Does this give the Government the strongest possible hand in negotiating a good deal? I am afraid that it does not—in fact, the opposite: it would create a perverse negotiating incentive for the EU to string out the negotiations for as long as possible. It is not in the UK’s interest to hand the EU negotiators a ticking clock and the hope that the more they delay, the more they can undermine the position of the UK Government and create damaging uncertainty and confusion. I agree with my noble friends Lord Blackwell and Lord King, who made precisely this point. The amendment would bolster those who wish not to secure the best deal with the EU but rather to frustrate Brexit altogether—a point that was well made by my noble friend Lord Howard.

However, I do not wish my response to be misinterpreted. I do not make these arguments because I think that the Government are somehow not accountable to Parliament. Of course we are. We have made a number of assurances on this matter. For example, there are some who have argued that this amendment is necessary to ensure that there is a vote on the final deal after the negotiations have concluded. I disagree. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs observed, our commitment to that is very clear and is in the best traditions of Parliament. It was made at the Dispatch Box and confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement and has been repeated many times since.

I will make that commitment once again: the Government will bring forward a Motion in both Houses of Parliament on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, this vote will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship, but we have not settled on the precise wording.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Report: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I share in full measure the hopes and concerns articulated today by so many of your Lordships. That said, if the amendment is put to the vote, I shall not feel able to support it. My approach to this amendment, as to earlier amendments to the Bill, has been essentially that it is fine to tell the Government what they must do once they have achieved what they regard as the best available deal, but it is not fine to seek to impose on the Government requirements as to precisely what that deal must be or how to achieve it. In other words, we can tell the Government what rights Parliament or, as I promoted, the public should have on a further referendum as to what we can do and should do, by way of approving or rejecting the proposed final deal—or, indeed, a decision to exit with no deal—but we should not seek to bind or inhibit the Government in reaching a deal and so risk weakening their negotiating position.

The Bill is not for that purpose but to keep our statute book intact. I urge your Lordships, rather than indulge all our hopes and wishes in this area, to think about whether we ought to put these explicit requirements into this legislation.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is reading the same amendment as me. The one I am reading, which was so well introduced by the right reverend Prelate, states:

“Nothing in this Act shall prevent the United Kingdom from … replicating”,


or “continuing to participate”. It does not say that we have to do it. It just says that nothing shall prevent our doing it. Perhaps I am reading a different amendment from the noble and learned Lord.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

Funnily enough, when I first read the amendment, I took the same point from it that my noble friend has taken. However, it seemed that it could not be so because it simply would not make sense to move an amendment that is not intended to have any effect on the Government as they pursue this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 95 and also Amendment 99, both of which stand in my name as well as those of other noble Lords. The case for these amendments has been stated clearly and cogently by the noble Duke who has spoken before me, and I shall put it quite succinctly.

First, as the noble Duke said, there was no reference to the date of our exit from the EU in the Bill as it was originally drafted and tabled by the Government about a year ago. It is a fair assumption therefore that, in the Government’s view at that time, putting the date in this Bill was neither necessary nor desirable. If it had been either of those things, it would have been in the original Bill. Its inclusion at a later date was a purely political decision—alas, another of those sops to one of the all-too-frequent outbursts from the Government’s Brexit-at-any cost supporters.

Secondly, the date seeks to pre-empt, or at least to make far more difficult, the use of one of the key provisions of Article 50—that which enables a two-year cut-off date to be extended by common accord of the 27 and the exiting state, the United Kingdom. Today is not the moment to discuss the eventuality under which that provision for an extension might arise, but it is surely premature today to seek to rule out at this stage that possibility, particularly since the post-negotiation withdrawal and implementation Bill, to which the noble Duke referred, could provide an opportunity to do that if by that stage it was clear beyond peradventure that the provision of an Article 50 extension was not going to be required or needed.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

Can my noble friend clarify one point? I think the noble Duke said that such an extension could be for only a few weeks because it could not extend beyond the date of the European elections. Is that correct?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

That is a political judgment about the views of the 27. It is not a political judgment on the views of the British Government, who have always said that they would never under any circumstances propose such an extension—one of those statements which I fear they may have to eat cold at some stage. The answer to my noble friend’s question is that it is a political judgment about the attitude of the 27. I do not think that today we can rule it in or rule it out, and I do not think we should.

Thirdly, we have heard from the Government Benches on a lot of occasions during the passage of this Bill that this is a purely technical Bill; I think the most recent occasion was earlier this afternoon. It is a technical Bill designed simply to prepare our statute book for exit day and that it is not a proper vehicle for policy formulations, in which case, and on that analysis, I suppose the Minister will shortly rise to his feet and accept the amendment, which I would certainly encourage him to do.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have nothing of substance to add to the speeches by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who have made a compelling argument to delete the date from the Bill. Having the date in the Bill was really a very silly move by the Government. It was not in the Bill to start with for very good reasons. It gave flexibility to Ministers to determine what it should be. They put it in only under pressure from part of the Tory party; they only then amended it and made it more complicated under pressure from other bits of the Tory party. The original position of having flexibility in the Bill made eminent sense, was preferable to what we have now, and we should revert to the original position.