European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Main Page: Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Conservative - Life peer)

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts
Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 6th September 2019

(4 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 View all European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 202-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (6 Sep 2019)
Lord Goldsmith Portrait Lord Goldsmith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Given what the Prime Minister has said, it is not going to happen. But the prerogative of the Prime Minister is retained under this provision—as it is in the other Bill.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Portrait Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
- Hansard - -

This simply keeps free from constraint the prerogative of the Prime Minister, notwithstanding this Bill. This Bill simply deals with requiring the Prime Minister to apply for an extension; if he manages to get one anyway, it does not matter. That is what is preserved. There is no question at that stage—if we accept the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the nature of extensions—about conditions, except temporal conditions. Therefore, what the Prime Minister is allowed to do here is what, apart from this Bill, he would be able to do. This Bill is an additional requirement on him when it is activated.

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Portrait Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I ask the Committee’s forbearance. Noble Lords on all sides are entirely agreed that the extension which the Bill demands that the Prime Minister seek is for one purpose only—look at the Kinnock amendment in the second part of Clause 1(4)—which is to try to get something like the May deal finally agreed. Heaven knows, I strongly support it and have long suggested that it should be agreed. However, having got such an extension, it would be quite unlawful for anybody to then say, “Ah, but we must use it instead to retract the Article 50 notice”—or seek a referendum or anything like that. Are all noble Lords happy and agreed on that?

--- Later in debate ---
Debate on whether the Schedule should be agreed.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Portrait Lord Mackay of Clashfern
- Hansard - -

I would like to say something about that. This is the text of a letter that the Prime Minister is required to send under the Bill. If there had been time, I would have proposed that the letter included a reason. After all, it is to the European Union that the reason is to be expressed. As I understand it, the European Union says that, if it is asked to grant an extension, it wishes to have a reason. In the ordinary course of events it would be right to have the reason in the letter. Unfortunately, time prevents that happening. That would have been better, but I am sure the initiative will be sufficient for the reason to be communicated to the European Union, even though it is not stipulated in the letter. The terms of the Bill say that this is the letter, so there may be a risk in adding to it—but that may be a risk that should properly be taken.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

If the noble and learned Lord is arguing that the letter has to have a reason in it, does that not mean it is conditional?

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Portrait Lord Mackay of Clashfern
- Hansard - -

The condition is obvious: to give the reason why you are applying for an extension. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the important point is about time, and the EU wants to know how this time is to be taken up. That seems to me a perfectly sensible idea.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble and learned Lord is far smarter at this than I am, but the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, argued that it was not possible for any conditions to be applied. So why is it necessary for us to give a reason?

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Portrait Lord Mackay of Clashfern
- Hansard - -

It seems obvious to me that if you are asked to make an extension, you do not do it just for the sake of doing it; you have some reason for it. I do not think that the European Union, far as it may be from common sense in many respects, is so daft that it provides for an extension to be applied for with no reason on earth why it should be granted. It seems common sense to me that the reason is required and, of course, the Bill contains the reason but has just happened not to put it in the letter. I suspect that what happened may have been a copying of the previous Bill, the Cooper Bill, which did not have the reason in at all, as I pointed out at the time. This Bill is much better and includes the reason. Unfortunately, it is not so good that it has it in the letter as well but, as I say, I do not think that matters. At least, I do not think that ultimately it will matter.

As for my noble and learned friend’s question about the reason, it is quite important that the reason given in the Bill is the reason that has to be given in support of the application for the extension. I would certainly have suggested that it should go in the letter if there had been time, but I fully appreciate that there is not time and therefore we must leave it as it is.

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, beside what my noble and learned friend has just said about the letter and its deficiency in not including a reason, do your Lordships not think it would be much better if it also made clear what the parties are supposed to ratify? It simply says:

“If the parties are able to ratify before this date”,


but there is no object of the sentence, so there is no object to ratify. It is clear that it refers to a withdrawal agreement—I understand that—but it is very sloppy drafting and it could be argued that it refers to the ratification of something else.