European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly because, like everyone else, I want to watch a football game later this evening. I hope I am not alone in the House in saying that, while it may be true that we would stand a greater chance against Brazil and others if we joined a European football team and abandoned the England one, I would not be in favour of that course of action. The reason I want to speak very briefly was hearing the noble Lord, Lord Newby, suggest that everyone needed a lecture on the constitution—I am certainly not averse to that—and, in particular, a lecture on the use of ping-pong. He also suggested that this Bill is like any other Bill and is being treated in exactly the same way: it is at that point that I have to disagree with him, on at least two grounds.

The first is that it is certainly not like any other Bill in terms of the amount of scrutiny it has been given; 12 days in Committee, six days on Report and several nights, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition maintained. It has had extensive scrutiny, entirely in line with the best traditions of this House, but not exactly like the scrutiny that every other Bill gets. Of course, there is another crucial difference between the way that this Bill has to be considered and the way that any other Bill has to be considered. I am not averse to ping-pong. I seem to remember occasions when a Bill has gone backwards and forwards six times. That can happen, indeed it can. However this Bill is not like any other Bill, because it is a direct and unavoidable consequence of a referendum, which this House voted for without opposition, to give the decision about our future membership of the European Union to the British people. This, we properly did, and they properly gave us their verdict. But it is not just the fact that the British people have told us that we need to pass the enabling legislation to facilitate Brexit, because this House made that decision as well—as did the House of Commons—when both Houses voted in favour of the implementation of Article 50. We all know that, having the referendum and the votes of both Houses on Article 50 as our guide, we absolutely have to pass this Bill into law, otherwise there will undoubtedly be a cliff edge. There is a lot of hyperbole about cliff edges but it is not hyperbole to talk about a legal cliff edge if this House does not pass the Bill in good time.

My view of our constitution is this: this is an exceptional Bill, which has had exceptional scrutiny. We have asked the Commons to think again, and it has thought again and decided that it preferred most of the Bill in the way that it was sent to us a couple of months ago. Now we need to expedite this. I, for one, am not minded to support any proposals which will further prolong the Bill, the decisions having already been made, according to our constitution—and, I might say, in the best traditions of this House.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has offered a tutorial in the constitution. I am a relatively new Member of this House—some people have been here far too long, I agree—but I understood that something called the Salisbury convention meant that the opposition parties would agree with those things put forward in the manifesto of a governing party. Perhaps somebody could explain to me why, when the Conservative manifesto said that we would leave the customs union, opposition parties—and, I regret to say, some of my noble friends—have determined that we shall not. Surely if it is in the manifesto, it has been agreed by the people of this country and we should accept the Salisbury convention. Perhaps at some point the noble Lord, Lord Newby, or the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, might explain what happened to the Salisbury convention and why it is being ignored left, right and centre.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, this may be the last time I address this House on a point of substance—unless my health changes. My physiotherapist says that I will be playing tennis again by Christmas, which would be nice because I used to captain the parliamentary tennis team. But at the moment I do not think I could crawl here from the Bishops’ Bar in a straight line without what that nice lady has given me across the counter.

Briefly, I want to make it clear why for the past 30 years I have been a pain in the neck to those who want to stay in Europe. I formed the Fresh Start group and the ERG some 30 years ago. I did so for a one-word reason. I will spend just three or four minutes, if I may, saying what I want to say.

My one word is not “trade”. I think trade is terribly important. One of the reasons I am against the European Union is that it is a defensive trade bloc, basically in the German interest, often not providing the technical solutions that Germany thinks it needs, as has been shown by several cases recently. The word I want to use is “patriotism”. I do not mean the fascist form of wrapping yourself up in a flag; I mean a bit of sentiment—John Major’s warm beer and the shadows of the trees across the cricket pitches, the music of Elgar, the Trooping of the Colour—but that is not the essence. The essence of why I oppose staying in the European Union is that it seems to me that the nation state is the best unit for democracy. It is the only unit that demands and gets loyalty and support from the people, in return for which it offers accountability. That is what it is all about: it is about the nation state being the basic unit for democracy. However much they support Europe, no one can claim that the European Union is a democratic state, in the sense that you cannot chose your Government if you are a citizen of the European Union. That is why I have always been against the European Union and in favour of the nation state, and above all the British nation state, which is in many senses the home of democracy. Democracy is the one word I would use if I were saying why I was against the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall formally move Motion F3, which is on the supplementary list. As your Lordships know, it is a manuscript amendment which I tabled this morning. For reasons of convenience, I shall refer to Motion F3 as “Grieve II”. We also have a Grieve I, but I shall come to that. I shall also comment on the Government’s Motion F, which is the Government’s amendment. As your Lordships have just heard, I do not move, and have not moved, Motion F1 which is on the Marshalled List and was tabled on Friday, and which I will refer to as Grieve I.

By way of brief explanation before I come to my substantive comments, I say that Grieve I, which is the Motion that I have not moved, was the amendment tabled by Mr Grieve in the House of Commons. It was before the House of Commons on 12 June: it was discussed but never voted on. Grieve II, the Motion to which I am now speaking and will formally move, reflects the agreement that Mr Grieve believed he had made with the Solicitor-General. Mr Grieve thought that Grieve II was agreed to, but it appears that senior Ministers objected and it has now been repudiated. By moving Grieve II—or Motion F3 on the supplementary list—I am asking your Lordships to make a decision which will enable the House of Commons to vote on what Mr Grieve believes was agreed with the Government. That is the purpose of my amendment.

On 30 April this year, this House passed by a very substantial majority what has been described as the “meaningful vote” amendment. On that occasion I explained at some length my reasons for advocating a truly meaningful vote. I am quite sure that I will be forgiven if I do not repeat myself. I would like, however, if I may, to explain why I am moving Grieve II, indicate briefly what the amendments provide, and say again briefly why I hope that your Lordships’ House will support Grieve II, the Motion I am moving.

The first question is: why am I moving Grieve II? On 12 June, the House of Commons considered the Bill as amended by this House. Mr David Davis, as he was perfectly entitled to do, put down an amendment that substantially altered your Lordships’ meaningful vote amendment. Mr Davis’s amendment was itself the subject of an amendment moved by Mr Dominic Grieve and that amendment is Grieve I, which I have not moved but which gave Members of Parliament the power to prevent the United Kingdom crashing out of the European Union and, in the event of such a risk arising, to instruct the Government on what to do next. I accept, and Mr Grieve accepts, that the words used in subsection (5C) of Grieve I are both directional and mandatory.

It seemed to everybody in the House of Commons that Grieve I was likely to carry, and in order to forestall this the Government, in the person of the Solicitor-General, offered negotiations. What he said, of course, appears in Hansard. Of Mr Grieve he said,

“I think that there is much merit in the approach that he urges the House to adopt in subsection (5A). I need more time to think about the other parts of the amendment … but by indicating my position on a key part of it, I am indicating that the Government are willing to engage positively ahead of the Lords stages”.

He went on to say of Mr Grieve’s comments:

“They will form a clear basis for a formal set of discussions that we can start at the earliest opportunity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/6/18; cols. 766-67.]


As a result of the Solicitor-General’s intervention, your Lordships’ meaningful vote amendment was defeated and Grieve I was never put to the vote.

Following the undertaking given by the Solicitor- General, negotiations were commenced. These negotiations included a meeting with the Prime Minister. It is reported by those present at that meeting that the Prime Minister herself gave a personal assurance to those present that their concerns about the risk of a no-deal Brexit would be addressed.

I have known Mr Grieve for very many years. He is a man of the utmost personal and professional integrity. I accept without reservation what he has said about those negotiations. I say in passing that the attacks on Mr Grieve in last week’s press, especially the Daily Mail, were disgraceful and the authors ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

As reported in the Times on 15 June, Mr Grieve said:

“We had very sensible negotiations and thought we had reached an agreement and then they phoned and said that they had to make the motion unamendable. For the life of me I can’t understand why … It is utterly bizarre”.


On 16 June the Times reported the following conversation: asked if he had been tricked by the Prime Minister, Mr Grieve replied that,

“when it came to the end, she wasn’t—for some reason—in a position to deliver”.

I was in direct contact with Mr Grieve throughout Tuesday. I can confirm from my own knowledge that until the afternoon of that day, he was confident that he could achieve a sensible accommodation. Grieve I, which I have not tabled, is the amendment that was before the House of Commons on 12 June. It would probably have passed but it was never voted on. But Grieve II sets out the agreement which Mr Grieve believes he made with the Solicitor-General, negotiating on behalf of the Government. If your Lordships approve Grieve II, the House of Commons will have an opportunity to consider and approve the agreement negotiated in good faith between the Solicitor-General and Mr Grieve.

[Lord Robathan]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He is indeed a friend. I have always found him both highly intelligent and very entertaining. However, on a point of clarification, can he say whether it remains his position that he wishes at all costs to destroy Brexit?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Robathan]

Can he say whether he wishes to destroy Brexit—that is not a very parliamentary gesture, if I may say so to the noble Lord opposite—and that this amendment is in fact about sabotaging Brexit? That seems to be the case. On a second point of clarification, can he tell us what discussions he has had with the Opposition Front Bench on this amendment?

[Viscount Hailsham]

Yes, it is perfectly true that I have had negotiations and talks with the Opposition Front Bench, and with the Liberal Democrats and many Cross-Benchers. I make absolutely no apology for that. This is the high court of Parliament and we are not party hacks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham]

I am not going to give way. Much as I admire my noble friend, I am now going to proceed. I come to the last and fundamental question: why should this House support Grieve II? There are essentially three reasons for that. The first is this—if I can find it in my notes.

[Lord Robathan]

Let the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, intervene.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—