Vol. 796 Monday No. 278 25 March 2019

PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDEROFBUSINESS

Questions Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services ...... 1609 Devolved Administrations ...... 1611 Independent Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry...... 1614 Health: HIV...... 1616 European Council Statement...... 1620 Brexit Motion to Take Note...... 1628 Brexit: Article 50 Motion ...... 1704

Grand Committee Heavy Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel Consumption) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ...... GC 311 Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ...... GC 316 Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ...... GC 324 Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ...... GC 338 Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ...... GC 339 Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019...... GC 348 Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ...... GC 353 Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Considered in Grand Committee ...... GC 362 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2019-03-25

The first time a Member speaks to a new piece of parliamentary business, the following abbreviations are used to show their party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind LD Independent Liberal Democrat Ind SD Independent Social Democrat Ind UU Independent Ulster Unionist Lab Labour Lab Co-op Labour and Co-operative Party LD Liberal Democrat LD Ind Liberal Democrat Independent Non-afl Non-affiliated PC Plaid Cymru UKIP UK Independence Party UUP Ulster Unionist Party

No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leave of absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2019, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1609 Child and Adolescent Mental Health[25 MARCH 2019] Child and Adolescent Mental Health 1610

House of Lords Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab): My Lords, on pace, will the Minister acknowledge that this Government Monday 25 March 2019 and their predecessor, the coalition Government, have made any number of promises about investment in 2.30 pm and prioritisation of mental health services, particularly for children and young adults, but that when it comes Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle. to the decisions made by clinical commissioning groups, the reality is that they have not brought them to fruition? What guarantees do we have that this time clinical Child and Adolescent Mental Health commissioning groups will do what they have been asked? Services Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: The noble Lord, Question Lord Hunt, is very experienced in this area and has been involved with local clinical commissioning groups. 2.36 pm The NHS has already opened 117 additional new Asked by The Lord Bishop of Newcastle mental health beds, and we have introduced new waiting standards for psychosis and eating disorders among To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action children. Progress is already being made, but we should they are taking to improve children’s and young not dismiss the frustrations of those trying to access people’s access to mental health care. services. That is why we have put in place ambitious new targets with the long-term plan: we want to see TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department 100% of children able to access the care they need. of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con): My Lords, the NHS is on track Baroness Hollins (CB): My Lords, about two-thirds to meet the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health of children with autism and two-fifths of children with commitment that 70,000 more children and young people special educational needs experience mental health will access treatment each year by 2020-21. Under the problems. But the provision of specialist clinical NHS Long Term Plan, a further 345,000 children and community child learning disabilities services is sparse. young people will receive support by 2023-24. Our What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure recent Green Paper sets out our plans to pilot a four-week that the needs of those vulnerable young people are waiting time for specialist NHS mental health services planned for in the new funding allocation? for children and young people. Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: The noble Baroness is right: those with particular needs, where The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I thank autism or learning disabilities cross over into mental the Minister for her remarks and welcome the commitment illness, must be taken into account. Some distressing to prioritising investment in mental health care for figures show that those with learning disabilities do children and young people. However, data published not get the physical health assessments that they need by the NHS in November showed that only one in four either. This must be taken into account and is in part young people with a mental health disorder accessed why the children and young people’s Green Paper puts specialist mental health services in the previous year. I in place designated senior leads for mental health in welcome plans from the Government to increase this schools and mental health support teams in and around figure to 100% within the decade, but given that three- schools, so that those needs can be identified as early quarters of children with a diagnosable mental health as possible, and we can prioritise prevention and early condition do not currently get access to the support identification of mental health needs when they arise. they need, how will the Government act to help this generation of children who will have moved on to Baroness Redfern (Con): My Lords, the first mental adult services before this rollout is complete? health support teams will be set up in 25 trailblazer areas, of which 12 will also trial a four-week waiting Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: I thank the time. Will those teams be in partnership with local right reverend Prelate for her very important question. authorities and the relevant CCGs, and who will monitor We are coming from a low base in children’s and young and evaluate the outcomes? people’smentalhealthservices,andsuccessiveGovernments have failed to prioritise these services as they should have. Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: The outcomes That is exactly why the long-term plan sets out our will be monitored by NHS England, but also by the determination to address this—to ensure that all children CCGs. Of course, they will be taken into account by get the care they need. With more money, more staff local authorities as well. and more beds, there will be £2.3 billion a year more for this area by 2023-24, a figure that is growing faster Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD): My Lords, given than the rest of the NHS budget. It is why the NHS the fragmentation and lack of co-ordination on the and HEE are targeting to recruit 8,000 more children’s ground between local mental health services, what and young people’s mental health staff, and why we are assessment have the Government made of the potential bringing in the first ever access and waiting services. I benefits of establishing local offers for mental health, accept, however, that the pace at which this is going is mirroring the approach to local offers for special frustrating, but it is important to understand the base educational needs introduced by the Children and from which we are coming. Families Act, to improve access? 1611 Child and Adolescent Mental Health[LORDS] Devolved Administrations 1612

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: The noble Lord Young of Cookham (Con): My Lords, the UK Baroness is very expert in this area, and I thank her for Government and devolved Administrations are working that interesting proposal. I should like to take it back together to develop common frameworks in policy areas to the teams in the department and write to her on wherepowersreturningfromtheEUintersectwithdevolved that point, if that would be okay. competence and where we need to continue working together following EU exit. We are also carrying out a joint review of intergovernmental relations with the Lord Touhig (Lab): My Lords, I have been told that devolved Administrations,considering both the principles the Government expect every health body to provide a and machinery that underpin relations and how they seven-day specialist multidisciplinary service to prevent can facilitate the best relationships possible for the future. people with autism needing in-patient care. That has been government policy since 2015. In the last four years, there has been a 24% increase in autistic people Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD): I hope that that will without a learning disability being placed in mental have a positive outcome, but will the Minister take note health hospitals. What are the Government doing of a publication today by the Institute for Government about this policy failure? entitled Ministers Reflect on Devolution? If so, he will note the frustration expressed by Ministers of all parties about the relationship between devolved and UK Ministers. Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: The noble Given that the UK is now in effect a quasi-federal state, Lord raises an extremely important and difficult area is it not time for a more fundamental review of how the of service. This is exactly why the Government have devolved Administrations can genuinely be part of just launched a review of autism services, which is UKdecision-making,evenconsideringaroyalcommission currently open for consultation. Weare trying to improve and the possible role of qualified majority voting? these services as we speak. Lord Young of Cookham: I understand the frustration The Earl of Listowel (CB): My Lords, as a trustee of to which the noble Lord refers: that was reflected in a mental health service for adolescents—the Brent our debate earlier this year initiated by the noble Lord, Centre for Young People—I welcome the additional Lord Lisvane. After that, I undertook to communicate funding the Government are bringing forward. Is the with the Chancellor of the Duchyof Lancaster,who wrote Minister aware, however, that one of the most effective back to try to allay those concerns, and a copy has ways of preventing children having to access mental been placed in the Library.The review to which I referred health care is supporting, for instance, groups of adoptive is a joint review and can make progress only if it is parents, foster carers or head teachers, with a senior agreed by all four parties. The noble Lord suggested the clinician? However, there is concern that many senior heavy guns of a royal commission; I think some nimble experienced clinicians have been lost because of the light artillery might be better focused to address the issue. shortage of funding. Will the Minister look at what she can do to stem that loss, find out what the issue is, and do what she can to invest in that area as well? Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab): My Lords, when did UK Ministers last meet Welsh Assembly Ministers, and when do the Government intend to reply to the Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: I thank the severe criticism made by our Delegated Powers Committee noble Earl for his question. Obviously, recruitment last October of the Agriculture Bill now before Parliament, aims in the mental health service are essential, and the which sought to bypass the devolved legislatures—or workforce plan sets out an aim for 600 full-time posts are the Government blind to the fact that the devolved inmentalhealth.WehavealreadydiscussedtheGovernment’s Administrations are now part of our constitution? plan in the Green Paper to set up 8,000 new children’s and young people’s posts in mental health. But that is Lord Young of Cookham: A top priority for the no good if we are not also retaining those staff. NHS Government is the constitutional integrity of the UK, Improvement and NHS Employers are now working and that is secured by a good working relationship to ensure that all mental health trusts are given the between all four Governments. I accept that the tools to drive improvements in retention. This is a intergovernmental architecture underpinning that programme that has seen improved turnover, and we relationship needs buttressing, and that is why we are shall keep monitoring it to ensure that we retain the undertaking the review that I mentioned. As for meetings, staff we work so hard to recruit. as the noble and learned Lord will know, there is a plenary JMC, a European one, a EU negotiations one and a ministerial forum. They are meeting regularly. Devolved Administrations The ministerial forum last met in February. The JMC Question on EU negotiations also met in February. Perhaps I could write to him on the specific issue that he raised 2.44 pm about the DPRRC. Asked by Lord Bruce of Bennachie Lord Wigley (PC): My Lords, does the Minister To ask Her Majesty’s Government what new appreciate that in the context of the current European proposals they are considering to facilitate co-decision negotiations, there was considerable dismay in Cardiff— making on United Kingdom matters between the and, I think, in Edinburgh as well—when there were Government and the devolved administrations. reports that Northern Ireland may be given a special 1613 Devolved Administrations[25 MARCH 2019] Independent Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry 1614 seat at the table when discussions are going on? Will he combine, or local mayors, who will shortly be elected, assure us that all the devolved Governments will be so we are making good progress in devolving power treated on an even-handed basis in such matters? from Westminster to the local authorities.

Lord Young of Cookham: The Prime Minister has Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab): My Lords, is the notion made it clear that she wants all the devolved that Northern Ireland is a special case somehow inevitable Administrations to have an enhanced role in the next as there is no devolved Administration in operation? stage of the negotiations with the EU as we move Is that the rationale that the Minister is pointing to? forward, I hope, after exit. I know of no plans to give preferential treatment to one devolved Administration over another. Lord Young of Cookham: A priority for the UK Government is to restore the devolved institutions in Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, Stormont. In the absence of Executive Ministers, there can my noble friend confirm that the devolved is a limit to the decisions which the civil servants in Administrations are consulted on both rolled-over Northern Ireland can take. That is why last November and new trade agreements before they are initialled? the Secretary of State issued guidance on decision-making for Northern Ireland during the period for Northern Lord Young of Cookham: I refer my noble friend to Ireland Executive formation. In the meantime, we are the answer I gave when she asked me about future taking such steps as we can to develop a common trade agreements. The Prime Minister has promised framework, but there does come a point where you an enhanced role. Official discussions are taking place cannot make much more progress without prejudicing to bring some definition to that, but I shall certainly the freedom of Northern Ireland to do what it wants. take on board my noble friend’s request that they should be involved in trade negotiations, which of Independent Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry course include many of their vital interests—particularly, say, fisheries in Scotland. Question

Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab): My Lords, the 2.52 pm Minister mentioned a case for intergovernmental Asked by Lord Campbell-Savours negotiations,but does he see a case for inter-parliamentary negotiations so that parliaments and assemblies get a To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans role, and to find a way of feeding the regions of England they have to meet representatives of Falsely Accused into this? Individuals for Reform (Fair) to discuss the operation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse; Lord Young of Cookham: The noble Baroness raises and when they plan for any such meeting to be held. a good point. The review I referred to is about intergovernmental relationships, not inter-parliamentary The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams ones.If the parliaments want to take action independently of Trafford) (Con): My Lords, the Government have of government to build up closer relationships, I see no plans to meet representatives of Falsely Accused no reason why they should not. Individuals for Reform to discuss the operation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The Lord Trefgarne (Con): My Lords, will my noble inquiry operates independently of government and its friend and Her Majesty’s Government take particular independence is crucial to its effectiveness. care in drafting the necessary secondary legislation for the Brexit process, while having particular regard to the Welsh Assembly, which made some complaints on this? Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab): My Lords, Sir Cliff Richard, Sir Edward Heath, Lords Brittan, Bramall Lord Young of Cookham: I recognise the particular and Janner, Paul Gambaccini and former MP Harvey role my noble friend has when it comes to statutory Proctor were all prominent, all accused, and all treated instruments, and I can give him that assurance. by the media as guilty. They were never tried, but their reputations were trashed. They were never convicted, Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): My Lords, the Minister and therefore innocent in law. Those who are alive has already been asked about what has happened to received damages; for the dead, there was not even an the English regions. Now that we have a rather privileged apology. Do Ministers really believe, in their heart of relationship for the three national assemblies,is devolution hearts, that the police invasion of their homes, with to the English regions stuck? In Yorkshire we have worldwide coverage through a lack of anonymity, and made very detailed proposals for a One Yorkshire IICSA once again dragging their names through the scheme. The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse mud of an inquiry—again, being transmitted around suggested that we had to accept four city regions for the world—is fair and just? Is it not fair to ask that Yorkshire or nothing, in spite of the fact that there is these and many other cases are on an agenda between no city in one of those four proposed regions. government and Fair?

Lord Young of Cookham: Devolution is England is Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I reiterate not stuck. I spend many hours in the Moses Room that the inquiry is not looking into whether Lord Janner dealing with statutory instruments, either setting up or anyone else—the noble Lord mentioned a number combined authorities, where local authorities wish to of people—wasguiltyof anycrimes,butathowinstitutions 1615 Independent Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry [LORDS] Health: HIV 1616

[BARONESS WILLIAMS OF TRAFFORD] The Earl of Listowel (CB): Will the Minister advise such as the police, which the noble Lord mentioned, the House whether victims are getting full therapeutic responded to the allegations made against these people. support to recover from their trauma? What steps are The inquiry’s focus is deliberately on the conduct of being taken to ensure that all victims get the excellent institutions and how the allegations were dealt with. support they need to recover from their past trauma? As noble Lords will know, the police guidance has been updated to make it clear that people should not Baroness Williams of Trafford: The noble Earl raises be named before they are charged unless there is a a very important question, because of course some public interest reason to do so. victims will never recover from the abuse and trauma they have suffered. The whole approach now of early Lord Lexden (Con): Has not enough unfair damage intervention and putting a package of support around been done to the reputations of the distinguished people those who are utterly traumatised, and may be for the towhomthenobleLord,LordCampbell-Savours,referred? rest of their life, is absolutely key to any recovery that Should it not be our overriding duty to expunge it? might be possible. Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, the Minister has Baroness Williams of Trafford: I totally understand just told the House that this inquiry will not make findings my noble friend’s point, and I know the feelings there of fact. Why then are the accusers to be heard in are in this House about this matter. The noble Lord, public session, transmitted all around the world, to Lord Paddick, has a Private Member’sBill going through maketheiraccusationswithoutevenaproperinterrogation the House; on some of its substance, HMICFRS will of them? undertake a review, and the Government want to wait until the outcome of that before taking any further action. Baroness Williams of Trafford: It is clear that there will be a mechanism for witnesses’ accounts to be Lord Paddick (LD): My Lords, it is clear from the examined and questioned. It will not be a one-sided Gatwick Airport drone incident in December that process at all. current guidelines—even the updated guidelines that the noble Baroness talked about—are not sufficient to Health: HIV protect those falsely accused of any offence from adverse publicity. How many more innocent people are going Question to have their lives ruined before the Government legislate? 2.58 pm Asked by Lord Black of Brentwood Baroness Williams of Trafford: The noble Lord comes back to his Private Member’s Bill, in the sense that he To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps is talking about the media. His Bill deals with media they are taking to bring an end to new transmission reporting before charge and after arrest. Again, I say of HIV infection by 2030. to him that DCMS is minded to wait until HMICFRS has reviewed police guidance on media relations before Lord Black of Brentwood (Con): My Lords, I beg considering whether further action should be taken. leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op): My Lords trustee of the Bloomsbury Network. does the noble Baroness agree that we should always remember the victims, those who are raped and abused; TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department recognise that these crimes are underreported; and of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of make every effort to ensure that victims come forward North Oxford) (Con): My Lords, due to increased and the perpetrators are brought to justice? access to testing and other measures, there has been a welcome 28% decline in new HIV diagnoses since 2015. We are also one of the first countries in the world Baroness Williams of Trafford: I am very glad the to meet the UNAIDS 90-90-90 HIV targets. To build noble Lord has asked that question. Quite often in on this progress, the Secretary of State for Health and these situations the victims can be overlooked, and SocialCarehasannouncedtheGovernment’scommitment thousands of accounts of sexual abuse have now been to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. shared with the Truth Project, which noble Lords and Work is under way to take this forward. others will have seen on the television. We must not overlook the victims. We must ensure that all the Lord Black of Brentwood: I thank my noble friend processes are in place in order that perpetrators will be for that Answer. I know that noble Lords across the brought to justice. Victims are, therefore, at the heart House who have long campaigned for this moment—I of what we do. am hazarding a guess that I might include the Lord Speaker in view of his exceptional leadership in this Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, am I correct in area—will applaud the Secretary of State’s commitment inferring from what my noble friend said that the to eliminating new HIV transmissions by 2030. In the Government will give their support to my noble friend certain knowledge that those with HIV on effective Lord Lexden’s Bill? treatment cannot pass it on, it is now in our power to bring an end to this cruel illness. Does my noble friend Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I will agree that what is needed now is a comprehensive have to consider it in due course. national HIV strategy, which brings together all of the 1617 Health: HIV [25 MARCH 2019] Health: HIV 1618 steps that we need to take: prevention through both has been here. We need to see that progress. In that sustainable access to PrEP and effective treatment for respect, does she recognise the work that the Global those diagnosed; more testing to stop late diagnosis; Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has greater investment in sexual health services; education had on reducing incidence worldwide of these killer about HIV in schools; an end to the fragmentation of diseases? Will she commit for the Government to be HIV services; and a commitment to tackle stigma? active in their leadership in the replenishment of the Global Fund this year? Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: I thank my noble friend for that Question and pay tribute to the Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: We can be work of the Lord Speaker. I agree with the premise of incredibly proud that the UK is a world leader in his Question. Public Health England has attributed efforts to end the AIDS epidemic, including through the success that we have had, with 92% of people with our huge investment in the Global Fund, which has HIV now diagnosed, 98% of patients receiving treatment provided 17.5 million people with treatment since 2017, and 97% virally suppressed to a combination of HIV andof coursethroughDfID’sresearchonHIVprevention. prevention, including expanded HIV testing, prompt That is exactly why DfID has committed to continuing initiation of antiretroviral therapy after diagnosis,condom its focus on HIV prevention technologies and I am provision and PrEP, all of which we will need to build happy to share that commitment with the noble Baroness. on as we develop plans to achieve zero infections by 2030. He is absolutely right that these will all need to Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con): My Lords, may I echo go into development of that plan. my noble friend Lord Black’s praise for the Secretary of State’s ambition and associate myself with his policy Baroness Thornton (Lab): My Lords, it is greatly to suggestions? My noble friend will be aware that there be welcomed that science is now leading us to end new is a similarly infectious, life-limiting disease that affects transmissions by 2030. But is the Minister aware that similar people, called Hepatitis C. We now have a cure women who are HIV-positive are four to five times more for that disease: we are able not just to eliminate it as likely to develop cervical cancer? I agree with the noble a public health risk but actually to cure people. In Lord that there is a need for a new strategy. Will the drawing up any strategy, will the Minister ensure that forward plan and investment in public health recognise the department also makes sure that curing Hep C and theneedforinvestmentinpreventionandearlyintervention making that cure available to those people is as big a and a package of care for all women living with HIV, priority as eliminating HIV? which includes going for regular smear tests? Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: I thank my noble friend for his question and also for his leadership Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: I thank the on this issue while he was in the department. He noble Baroness for her question. She is absolutely knows that the Government are committed to being a right that the key to us making progress is prevention world leader in domestic eradication of Hepatitis C. and early intervention and also understanding about He will know also that a legal challenge by AbbVie any crossover consequences with other illnesses. She is delayed the start of contracts on this issue by six months. also right that the key is closing the gaps now. In 2017, I am pleased to be able to inform the House, however, 43% of diagnoses were made at a late stage of HIV that in January the High Court found in NHS England’s and, although there has been a decline, the largest favour on all grounds in this matter. We can now go group diagnosed at late stage were black African forward with those innovative contracts, which are heterosexual men and women. It is important that we worth about £1 billion over five years. That will be close those gaps. Some key projects have been working rapidly put in place over the coming months, which on that through the HIV Innovation Fund so when we will allow us to make progress on this matter. bring forward plans for HIV 2030 it is important that we find out how we can close those gaps if we are Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl): My Lords, although I indeed to get to zero by 2030. congratulate the Government on the progress they have made in the diagnosis and treatment of HIV, Baroness Barker (LD): My Lords, does the Minister does the Minister realise that women in this country agree that in order to end HIV by 2030 all children have an ever-decreasing service for cervical cytology need to understand their own risks through comprehensive and, indeed, for having those smear tests read in relationship and sex education and that schools that laboratories, given that the number of laboratories is refuse to teach it are jeopardising the health of all being decreased? Does she realise also that, because of pupils? Does she agree that that should not happen? cuts in local government funding, there are very few family planning clinics now, either for women or young Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: Knowledge girls? That means that the provision of contraception about safer sex and sexual health is essential for young is very limited, because they have to go to their GPs. people. They must be equipped to understand and to make safe, informed and healthy choices. That is why Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: I thank the we have brought in compulsory SRE for the first time, noble Baroness for that probing question. The which all schools should be required to teach. Government have mandated local authorities to commission comprehensive open access sexual services. Baroness Hayman (CB): My Lords, as well as the We have continued the ring-fence around public health very welcome national strategy that the Minister described, services in local authorities at £3 billion a year and will she accept that this is a global problem? In other they have maintained 3 million attendances in 2017, parts of the world, progress has not been as great as it which is an increase since 2016. What is important is 1619 Health: HIV [LORDS] European Council 1620

[BARONESS BLACKWOOD OF NORTH OXFORD] European Council that the long-term plan has also identified sexual Statement health services as an area for review going forward, which is one of the findings from PHE. This is therefore a cause for encouragement, and I hope that the noble 4.30 pm Baroness will be reassured. The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable Arrangement of Business friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement Announcement is as follows: “With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to 3.07 pm make a Statement on last week’s European Council. Before the Council, I wrote to President Tusk to Motion to Adjourn seek formal approval for the legally binding assurances Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on the Northern Ireland backstop and alternative arrangements agreed in Strasbourg on 11 March. I That the House do now adjourn. reported your Statement, Mr Speaker, which made it clear that, for a further meaningful vote to take place, Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con): My Lords, it might the deal would have to be, be useful to the House if I make a brief statement ‘fundamentally different—not different in terms of wording, but about today’s business. different in terms of substance’.—[Official Report, Commons, As the House will be aware, the House of Commons 18/3/19; col. 781.] will hear a Statement from my right honourable friend I explained that, as a result, some honourable and the Prime Minister beginning at 3.30 pm. Following right honourable Members were seeking further changes usual channel discussions this morning, I suggest that to the withdrawal agreement, and I requested a short it will be for the convenience of those taking part in extension to the Article 50 process to 30 June. I regret today’s debate in the House if we adjourn during having to do so. I wanted to deliver Brexit on 29 March, pleasure to await the opening exchanges on the Prime but I am conscious of my duties as Prime Minister to Minister’s Statement. My noble friend the Leader will all parts of our United Kingdom and of the damage then repeat the Statement and, following 20 minutes of to that union that leaving without a deal could do when Back-Bench questions and answers, we will move one part of it is without devolved government and immediately to the debate. We will seek to ensure that unable therefore to prepare properly. those who are not signed up to speak are given priority The Council formally endorsed the legal instrument when intervening on the repeated Statement. I beg to relating to the withdrawal agreement and the joint move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure statement supplementing the political declaration. This and, in moving this Motion, I suggest that we do not should increase the confidence of the House that the reconvene before 4.30 pm. backstop is unlikely ever to be used and will be only temporary if it is. But the Council also reiterated, once Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op): My Lords, I again, its longstanding position that there could be no just want to be sure that the House will adjourn until reopening of the withdrawal agreement. So, however 4.30 pm, because the Government Chief Whip did not the House decides to proceed this week, everyone quite say that. The Lord Speaker did but, if it is not to should be absolutely clear that changing the withdrawal be exactly 4.30 pm, we will need some alert. agreement is simply not an option. TurningtoextendingArticle50,thishasalwaysrequired Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I said not before 4.30 pm. the unanimous agreement of the other 27 member states. I hope that that is clear. It means that if the exchanges As I have made clear before, it was never guaranteed in the House of Commons go on for longer, we will that the EU would agree to an extension or the terms not reconvene until the initial exchanges are over. on which we requested it, and it did not. Instead, the Council agreed that, if the House approves the withdrawal Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, that is not at agreement this week, our departure will be extended to all satisfactory. If the exchanges drag on—the Speaker 11 pm on 22 May. This will allow time for Parliament has a tendency to allow them to go on and on—we will to pass the withdrawal agreement Bill, which is legally not know exactly when to reconvene and will be necessary for the deal to be ratified. But if the House hanging around. Will there be an alert about when we does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week, are to reconvene, or will we reconvene at 4.30 pm? We our departure will instead be extended only to 11 pm need to know precisely when we have to be back. on 12 April. At this point, we would either leave with no deal or we would, Lord Taylor of Holbeach: If it helps the noble Lord, ‘indicate a way forward before this date for consideration by the European Council’. I will make sure that we are here at 4.30 pm. If this involved a further extension, it would certainly mean participation in the European parliamentary Motion agreed. elections. The Council’s conclusions were subsequently turned 3.10 pm into a legal decision, with which the UK agreed, and Sitting suspended. which came into force last Friday. So, while the 1621 European Council [25 MARCH 2019] European Council 1622

Government have today laid a statutory instrument, differences. I would also like to thank all those colleagues which will be debated later this week, to reflect this in who have supported the deal so far, and those who domestic legislation, the date for our departure from have taken the time to meet with me to discuss their the EU has now changed in international law. Were concerns. the House not to pass the statutory instrument, it I hope we can all agree that we are now at the would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, moment of decision. In doing so, we must confront but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit. the reality of the hard choices before us. Unless this I continue to believe that the right path forward is House agrees to it, no deal will not happen. No Brexit for the United Kingdom to leave the EU as soon as must not happen. And a slow Brexit that extends possible with a deal—now, on 22 May—but it is with Article 50 beyond 22 May, forces the British people to great regret that I have had to conclude that, as things take part in European elections and gives up control stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House of any of our borders, laws, money or trade is not a to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote. I Brexit that will bring the British people together. continue to have discussions with colleagues across the IknowthatthedealIhaveputforwardisacompromise. House to build support so that we can bring the vote It seeks to deliver on the referendum and retain trust in forward this week and guarantee Brexit. If we cannot, our democracy, while also respecting the concerns of the Government made a commitment that we would work those who voted to remain. But if this House can back across the House to find a majority on a way forward. it, we would be out of the European Union in less than The amendment in the name of my right honourable two months. There would no further extensions, no friend the Member for West Dorset seeks to provide threat to Brexit and no risk of a no deal. I believe it is for this process by taking control of the Order Paper. I the way to deliver the Brexit that the British people continue to believe that doing so would be an unwelcome voted for. I commend this Statement to the House”. precedent to set, which would overturn the balance of our democratic institutions. So the Government will 4.37 pm oppose this amendment this evening but, in order to Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): My Lords, fulfil our commitments to this House, would seek as we are about to have a debate, I think it would be to provide government time in order for this process to useful for me to keep my comments for when I speak proceed. It would be for this House to put forward in that debate. options for consideration, and to determine the procedure by which they wished to do so. Lord Newby (LD): My Lords, the same applies to me. But I must confess that I am sceptical about such a process of indicative votes. When we have tried this kind of thing in the past, it has produced contradictory Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab): My Lords, the European outcomes or no outcome at all. There is a further risk Council says in its conclusions—I have a copy in front when it comes to Brexit, as the UK is only one half of of me—that it, the equation and the votes could lead to an outcome “expects the United Kingdom to indicate a way forward”, that is unnegotiable with the EU. No Government before 12 April 2019. This cannot simply mean that could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome there is a contradiction with the sentence that follows, without knowing what it is. So I cannot commit the which says: Government to delivering the outcome of any votes “The European Council reiterates that there can be no re-opening held by this House, but I do commit to engaging of the Withdrawal Agreement that was agreed … in November constructively with this process. 2018”. There are many different views on the way forward, Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the European but I want to explain the options as I understand them. Council would be ready to look at an alternative set of The default outcome continues to be to leave with no proposals that could be put forward by this Parliament? deal. But this House has previously expressed its opposition to that path, and may very well do so again Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The noble Lord is this week. The alternative is to pursue a different form right that there are two elements to the extension that of Brexit or a second referendum. But the bottom line has been agreed. If the deal is passed this week, there remains: if the House does not approve the withdrawal will be an extension to 22 May to get the legislation agreement this week and is not prepared to countenance through. If the deal is not passed this week, the leaving without a deal, we will have to seek a longer extension is to 12 April, at which point we will either extension. This would entail the UK having to hold leave with no deal, because that remains the legal European elections, and it would mean that we will default even post the SI, or a plan will be put forward not have been able to guarantee Brexit. These are now for alternative arrangements. Those are the two options choices that the House will have the opportunity to that we have in front of us, which is why we are hoping express its view on. to be able to bring the vote forward again. Mr Speaker, this is the first chance I have had to address the House since my remarks last Wednesday Lord Robathan (Con): Perhaps I am being a bit evening. I expressed my frustration with our collective slow, but could my noble friend explain something to failure to take a decision, but I know that many me? She said that the Council’s decision, accepted by Members across this House are frustrated too. We all this Government, trumps the withdrawal Act which have difficult jobs to do. People on all sides of the this Parliament passed. Will she confirm that? Therefore, debate hold passionate views and I respect those whatever happens, there is no question that the departure 1623 European Council [LORDS] European Council 1624

[LORD ROBATHAN] the Council with this formal approval, so that is a date of 29 March has been put back, because it has change to the withdrawal agreement since the last been overruled by the European Council’s decision. Is vote. that correct? Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP): Given the ever Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The agreement of deepening Brexit crisis, why do the Government not the UK Government and the European Union for this stand well back, take a deep breath and a clean sheet extension is now international law,which takes precedence. of paper, and make the most obvious of offers to We have laid the SI to extend Article 50 in those two Brussels? I ask again why the Government do not offer ways and, indeed, that now trumps domestic law. EU citizens continuing reciprocal residence for, say, a couple of years, and offer continuing free trade, but Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB): My Lords, there under the WTO, which gets rid of the Irish problem. is one point I would like to clarify. The noble Baroness We could talk about how much money we may give and the Prime Minister referred to taking a decision on the EU when that has been accepted. Are the Government the agreement this week. My understanding was that making such a mess of Brexit because they do not we had until 12 April to take that decision. Is the reference want us to leave the EU? Is that the underlying truth? to “this week”part of the European Council’s decision? Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: No, over the past two-and-a-half years, the Government have worked Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Yes, it is. Conclusions 9 extremely hard to get a deal that is in the best interests and 10 from the European Council make it clear that of the UK and the EU and to deliver on the result of approval of the deal this week will lead to the 22 May the referendum. The Prime Minister has been categorically extension for the Bill. If there is no agreement on the clear on that. That remains our position, and that is deal this week, we have until 12 April. Under those why we will be working very hard to try to bring a vote circumstances, we either have to put another plan back this week so that we can leave in an orderly way forward or we leave with no deal on 12 April. Therefore, and in a way that we believe is best for the British people. there is a link between having a vote on the deal this week and the 22 May extension. Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB): My Lords, if the duty of the Government is to keep their people Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD): In her Statement, secure, does this includes health security? The noble the Prime Minister clearly said that we would leave Baroness has just said that we might have to leave with no deal only if that was supported by the other without a deal. There is strong opposition to this, House. Is that now the Government’s position? partly because we have not prepared in the long term for no deal. I am absolutely convinced that the health Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The Government’s and social care services are not ready for no deal, in position is that we will work towards a deal which is in terms of both the supply of medicine and staff. Can the best interests of the UK and the EU. That is why you assure the House that we will not leave with a no we will continue to try to ensure that we get that vote, deal and put health security at risk? and get the deal through, so that we can leave in an orderly fashion. Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As I think I and a number of Front-Bench colleagues have said, we have Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab): Would the noble been preparing for no deal. We have contingency plans Baroness help me here, with a process of elimination? in place, particularly in relation to healthcare. Noble I am slightly confused. Since the Prime Minister says Lords have rightly raised this issue on a number of that there is no chance of any change to the withdrawal occasions. We have consistently said that we do not deal, and since the Speaker in the other place says that believe that no deal is the best outcome. That is why there is no chance of a Motion being brought back we have a deal on the table and that is what we without fundamental changes to its substance, and continue to work for. I entirely agree that leaving with therefore the deal, that would seem to preclude bringing the deal the Prime Minister has negotiated is a far, far the same Motion back for the third time. First, could the better outcome. noble Baroness explain why the Prime Minister thinks she can bring that Motion back without the substantial Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD): My Lords, changes which, as she says, would be utterly opposed now that the Government have abandoned the conventions by the European Union? Secondly, irrespective of of confidentiality and collective Cabinet responsibility, what the House of Commons votes for this or next can the Leader of the House tell us whether any of the week, since there is no chance of substantial changes proposals under consideration carry majority support to the deal, that is not a substantial platform for in the Cabinet? moving forward between now and April. Does everything Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I think the noble not point to the conclusion that there either has to be Lord will recognise that I have never breached that a revocation or a very long extension of the present convention, and I will not be doing it now. timeframe, to allow for something substantial, such as a general election or another referendum? Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab): My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify the constitutional issue raised Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The Council formally by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan? Is it not the case endorsed the legal instrument relating to the withdrawal that, under the terms of the EU withdrawal Act, if agreement and the joint statement supplementing the Parliament does not approve the statutory instrument, political declaration. There was further movement at we leave on 29 March? Is she none the less saying to us 1625 European Council [25 MARCH 2019] European Council 1626 that EU law does not permit the Parliament of the Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The Prime Minister United Kingdom even to determine the date of Brexit? has been very clear. Her priority is delivering the result If that is so, does it not illustrate powerfully why a of the referendum that we have. That is why she has majority of voters in the referendum who cherish our worked so hard to negotiate a deal and that is why we parliamentary democracy believe passionately that it believe this deal is the best option. But, as we have is right for us to leave the EU? said, if the amendment in the other place passes, there will be the opportunity for indicative votes to happen, Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I am afraid I can but we remain of the view that we should respect the only restate that 29 March is no longer a date on result of the first referendum, and indeed the result of which we can leave the EU. The agreement made is a the election, during which both major parties said that matter of international law. It has always been the case they would respect the referendum result. that agreements at an international level take precedence. The House of Commons voted to seek an extension to Lord Howell of Guildford (Con): Have we got things Article 50, which is what has been done. Rejecting the quite straight about this week and next week? The SI would not stop the extension being agreed or coming Prime Minister has concluded that as things stand into force because it is a matter of international law. there is still insufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote, but she has Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB): My Lords, will also said that, the Leader of the House answer this question? From the Statement that she read out, it seems that the Prime “if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week”— Minister has accepted that, this evening, she will not succeed in persuading the House of Commons not to that is, the meaningful vote again— have the indicative vote. The indicative votes will go “our departure will instead be extended only to 11 pm on 12 April”. ahead,andthePrimeMinisterhassaidthattheGovernment So 12 April it is. Is that right? will facilitate that. Has she given any thought to giving this House a say on indicative votes? When will she Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The Statement makes programme that? it clear that at this point the Prime Minister does not believe that she has support for the deal, but we still Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Obviously, the House have several days of this week left. Anything can of Commons has not yet voted, so it is somewhat happen, as noble Lords know. difficult for us to plan business on a hypothetical. I hope, however, noble Lords will also recognise that, through the usual channels, we have given this House Lord Empey (UUP): My Lords, the Irish Republic’s ample opportunities to express its view and will. Obviously, Prime Minister is reported to have said that, in the we will have to see what happens in the House of event of no deal, he does not anticipate checks at the Commons tonight, and we will then have discussions border. If there is substance to that report and it is in the usual way to see what we can facilitate for the accurate, will somebody please explain what on earth House. We will certainly attempt to do that. we have been at war for in this country over the past few months? Baroness Deech (CB): My Lords, could the noble Baroness explain her statement that international law Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: A press release has trumps domestic law? The received wisdom of the past indeed been put out about the EU completing preparations 50 years, as far as I am aware, is that international law for a possible no-deal scenario, but it states: does not apply here unless it is specifically adopted by “The EU will be required to immediately apply its rules and domestic law. If she cannot answer that one, maybe tariffs at its borders with the UK. This includes checks and noble and learned Lords in the House can, but it is controls”. news to me that international law which has not been enacted trumps our own law. Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab): My Lords, the Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: It is because this is noble Baroness has now told us more than once in the an international agreement. It has always been the case context of the Statement that the Government’s priority that agreements at an international level take precedence. has been the delivery of a deal. Is it not the case that in yesterday’s Sunday Times the political editor revealed, Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab): My Lords, I with the help of one of the noble Baroness’s Cabinet am sure that many people outside will be amazed that colleagues, the content of a Cabinet minute that showed the Prime Minister paid no attention to the events in that the discussion in the Cabinet was about the London on Saturday, or to the unprecedented numbers preservation of the unity of the Conservative Party? signing a petition to Parliament about revocation. The This is recorded in a Cabinet minute. Was not something Prime Minister acknowledges in the Statement that else exercising the mind of the Prime Minister and her she needs to compromise. She has a compromise on Cabinet when they were discussing what to do about the table: enough people will back her deal if she Brexit? agrees to a confirmatory vote following a vote in Parliament. This would get all of us through the Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: No, the Prime Minister impasse, embarrassment and humiliation we are now and the Cabinet have been entirely clear: we want to in. Will the noble Baroness the Leader please put this deliver what is best for the country. That is why we position to the Prime Minister in Cabinet? have been working so hard to get a deal that does. 1627 European Council [LORDS] Brexit 1628

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con): My Lords, the extension to 22 May. Our hope is that we get the deal Prime Minister’s Statement said that the EU was not through this week. Obviously, if we do not, the next prepared to reopen the agreement, but surely it could crunch point will be 12 April. I suppose we could ask have been possible, if there had been agreement within the EU if we could bring the deal back next week but, the EU 27, to have a codicil to the agreement that under the current terms, we need to bring it back this would have given us a guarantee on the Irish backstop. week. That is why we will be working hard to ensure Is it not true that the EU 27 were split on this issue and that we can get a majority for it. thought that the risk of no deal had been removed, so they could face the Government down? Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): My Lords, may I clarify the business for this week? I have spent my Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The Council formally career in international relations, although I am not a endorsed the legal instrument relating to the withdrawal lawyer. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is entirely agreement. Three new legally binding commitments correct in saying that we need to carry an international were agreed, but the Council reiterated—it is in its agreement into domestic law for it to happen; this conclusions—that there could be no reopening of the House and the other House will be doing so this week. withdrawal agreement. Then, at some very urgent point within the next 10 days at the latest, the withdrawal agreement, however modified, Lord Tugendhat (Con): My Lords, does my noble again must be put before both Houses. If it is not, we friend accept that while many of us who voted to will still be stuck with the date of 12 April. remain have accepted that we must accept the result of the referendum and work towards an orderly exit from Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: We have laid the the European Union, the Government have now had statutory instrument to which the noble Lord refers, three years in which to do that, but have not shown and our intention is to debate it on Wednesday. themselves capable of resolving this issue? Does that not mean—as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and others—that we should now also Brexit think about whether the mandate that the referendum Motion to Take Note and the election represented is wearing rather thin, and that the time is coming to consider whether the 4.58 pm million people who marched and the four million who signed the petition have a point? Moved by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park That this House, in accordance with the provisions Noble Lords: Five million. of section13(6)(b)of theEuropeanUnion(Withdrawal) Act 2018, takes note of the Written Statement titled Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As I said, if the “StatementunderSection13(4)of theEuropeanUnion amendment for a series of indicative votes passes, we (Withdrawal) Act 2018”, made on 15 March 2019. will fulfil our commitment to the House of Commons to provide government time for the process to proceed. The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) It will be for the Commons to put forward options for (Con): My Lords, in repeating my right honourable consideration and to determine the procedure by which friend the Prime Minister’s Statement, I have already it wishes to do so. given the Government’sposition on next steps. Therefore, to avoid repetition and detaining the House further, I Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab): My Lords, perhaps propose that we move straight on to the speakers’ list the noble Baroness might clarify one point for me. She for the Motion standing in my name. I beg to move. has told us that the Prime Minister does not believe it is worth putting the current deal to the House of Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): I thank the Commons this week. Leader for repeating the Statement. My guess is that it was through gritted teeth, given that we are not leaving this Friday. However, that Statement leaves us no A noble Lord: She has not said that. wiser, no more confident and no less ashamed to be led by a Government and a Cabinet unable to lead, to Lord Harris of Haringey: The implication is that unite, to listen or to put the national interest first. she does not think it will be passed. However, she has But first, a confession: 10 days ago, when we were also told us that only if it is passed this week will the debating the Private Member’s Bill of my noble friend extension to 22 May apply. Presumably, the Prime Lord Grocott to end by-elections for hereditary Peers, Minister is optimistic that at some point this deal will I noted that I was not here by virtue of the achievements pass, but what happens if the deal is passed next week or wisdom of my father. Perhaps I misled the House, or the week after? On which date would we leave the because I learned from my much-loved father—and EU in those circumstances? maybe it was his wisdom that, in one way or another, got me here—a tale he told me when I was eight or Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As I said, we hope nine, which has stayed with me. It was about a passing-out to work towards bringing the deal back this week. parade—he was in the military—where one proud Under the terms of the EU conclusions, the agreement mother, viewing the march, sighed, “What a shame that was that the deal had to pass this week for us to get the my son is the only one in step, and all the others have 1629 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1630 got it wrong”. It does not take much imagination to open a fresh approach to our future relationships with hear the remaining supporters of our Prime Minister the EU, an approach shorn of the Prime Minister’s echoing the same: “What a shame that only she is right disastrous red lines. We know that this is possible: and all the others have got it wrong”. Michel Barnier said that the political declaration that Who are the others? They are the Church, business, sets out the framework for our future relations could the CBI, the TUC, the Government of Wales, the people be made more ambitious in the coming days, if a of NorthernIreland,yourLordships’Houseand,significantly, majority in the House of Commons so wishes. the EU,its Commission and 27 leaders of member states. The Prime Minister, however, appears bent—we That is quite a roll call to dismiss. The 27 Prime Ministers have heard it again just now—on trying to flog her or Presidents from across the continent are experienced very dead horse. For some of us her deal, which ingoverning,politics,negotiatingandconsensus-building. has been overwhelmingly rejected twice by MPs, is the The Archbishop of Canterbury—whose task of uniting Monty Python parrot. Here we are, however, in the last 85 million Christians worldwide the Prime Minister chance saloon, so our MPs must be heard and their has made look like a walk in the park—has launched preferences set out. This is in the national interest and five days of prayer as we approach Brexit. Business—the isthedemocraticwayforward.Despitethemostextraordinary people importing and exporting—knows the cold reality view of the ERG’s Steve Baker, who claimed that of tariffs, non-tariff barriers, checks, delays, transport “nationalhumiliationisimminent”throughtheseindicative and handling costs, and also the need for legal, banking votes—his way of listening to elected politicians— and contract certainty. The TUC and the CBI, which we normally call two sides of industry, have quite Lord Dykes (CB): I am very grateful to the Front exceptionally joined together in the light of the “national Bench, particularly as the noble Baroness forwent her emergency”, in their words, to warn that a no-deal, speech in the earlier business. Does she not also very “shock to our economy would be felt by generations to come”. strongly commend the extremely important utterance, The First Minister of Wales is imploring the Prime promise and suggestion by the Labour deputy leader, Minister to work on a cross-party basis to amend the Tom Watson, at Saturday’s huge march, that no deal, political declaration, not the withdrawal agreement, or Mrs May’s deal, should be linked to a people’s vote and then to negotiate with the EU to adapt the framework. later on, which would meet the wishes of the noble Gibraltar and UK citizens abroad will feel the reality Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and other noble Lords who of a no-deal exit in hours or weeks of departure. Your want that to happen? Lordships’ House is staunchly against no deal and repeatedly in favour of a customs union. The Opposition have spelled out our alternative approach and are open Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: The noble Lord to continued EU trade via a customs union and single used the words “later on”, so perhaps he could wait market alignment. The Commons—the elected Members until I am later on in what I am going to say. steeped in their own communities, their businesses, It is extraordinary that a former Minister could use people, trading and academia—are knowledgeable about the words “national humiliation” about listening to the realities of a chaotic or ill-designed Brexit. The elected politicians, and Mr Fox said today that the Prime Minister’s senior colleague Philip Hammond Government could ignore MPs’ indicative votes if says that a no-deal Brexit, Parliament’s stated choice went against the Conservative “would cause catastrophic economic dislocation in the short term manifesto. So there we have it: the Conservative and in the longer term it would leave us with a smaller economy, manifesto—that of a Government who failed to win poorer as a nation relative to our neighbours in the European an outright majority—is more important than anything Union”. else. Furthermore, the Statement that has just been But the Prime Minister ignores all these. She continues repeated uses the excuse that, “Well, perhaps the EU to threaten no deal and, instead of talking to them, will not accept it”, to fail to promise to heed the invites to Chequers Jacob Rees-Mogg, Steve Baker, decisions and the views of MPs. Of course, the Prime Dominic Raab, David Davis and Iain Duncan Smith—the Minister may not be able to deliver on what is asked, very people who have been writing her script for two but surely she should have committed to making that years and now will not support her deal. Oh, and I her new objective—either her negotiating aim, or, if it forgot Boris Johnson, who seems to think we have an was something else, to do that. It is shameful that the implementation period without a deal. No, ex-Foreign Government refuse to heed the elected House. Secretary, no deal means no transition period. He We know the dangers of no deal, and so do the does not even understand that—and these are the Government: that is why that nuclear bunker under people who our Prime Minister heeds. the MoD has been reopened, so that the Armed Now, to avoid no deal, we need the Prime Minister Forces are prepared, while the Cabinet Office is readying to listen to those she has ignored and to amend the itself by working with local authorities, airports and future framework, even at this late stage. The FT’s Jim businesses for what will be a calamity, and briefing Pickard commented today: privy counsellors accordingly. The Government know “It’s March 25, 2019 and MPs are about to have multiple votes the risk of that. on what kind of Brexit we might have. If you’d told people this I had been about to say that today’s political chaos two years ago they’d have thought you were out of your mind”. is completely unprecedented. However, as I see that We do, however, have a breathing space, the Prime the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—our national treasure Minister having been thrown a lifeline—albeit just of a historian—is here and about to speak, I will leave 14 days—by the European Council. It will be only a it to him to judge whether this is really the worst breathing space, and not a suffocating pause, if we political mess that this country has found itself in. 1631 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1632

[BARONESS HAYTER OF KENTISH TOWN] crashing out? We know that Nigel Farage can summon We hear about this best from the people—up to up 200 in a pub car park—hardly the will of the people. 1 million of them on Saturday’s magnificent march. We also know that every poll shows a large majority in When I last looked, there were 5.5 million signatures favour of a people’s vote, and a large majority of them to a petition to revoke, and dissatisfaction with the now want to remain rather than supporting either the Government is at an all-time high: just 11% “satisfied”, Government’s deal or leaving without a deal. So when and 86% “dissatisfied”, a net minus 75% dissatisfaction the Prime Minister says that she is on the people’s side, with this rudderless Government, headed by a Prime she is, as with so many other things, completely at odds Minister with no authority. with reality. We have to find a way forward. There are probably Until today, however improbable this may seem, five ways out of this. The Prime Minister could try to the Prime Minister seemed to be a disciple of Samuel get her own party behind the deal—I wish her well Beckett. When it came to her deal, she was following with that, because it does not look as if she has his injunction: succeeded so far. She could get the deal changed in the “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail way that I have outlined. It could be that Parliament better”. takes over. It could be that the people take over with a Today’s Statement signals the end of that strategy, and new referendum—or perhaps the people could take the end of any attempt by the Government to stay in over with a general election. However,the Prime Minister’s charge of the Brexit process. Statement gave me no confidence that she was willing The Prime Minister says that she is no longer to rise to this challenge, that she is in charge, that she is willing to fail better, and will not bring forward her willing at all costs to avoid no deal or that she is deal again until it succeeds.If—as she tacitly accepts—this willing to move to encompass the national interest. We is unlikely ever to happen, she has said that she will have to wish our colleagues in the other place strength provide government time for other options to be and determination, because it is they who must now considered. But what is unclear is when she will conclude grasp the situation and act accordingly. that her deal is dead. Will it be this week? Will it be next week? Will it perhaps be 11 April? Perhaps the 5.10 pm Minister will tell us. Lord Newby (LD): My Lords, this is now the It is therefore hardly surprising that Members of 13th opportunity that we have had to debate the another place will vote on an amendment later today Government’s withdrawal agreement. I am sure that that would give them early votes on other options. The all Members of your Lordships’ House hope, like me, Government say that if this amendment succeeds it that it will be the last. will upset the balance between the Government and the Commons. But surely her proposal does the same. Since we had our previous debate on the subject, The Prime Minister accepts that it is for the House of some things at least have changed. The first is that the Commons, not the Government, to put forward options EU has agreed to an extension of Article 50, which for consideration and to determine the procedure by will be widely supported across the House. The way in which it wishes to do so. The only difference between which this happened, though, is a telling foretaste of the Government’s position and that of Sir Oliver how life would be were we to leave the EU. The Prime Letwin is one of timing, not substance. The truth is Minister was allowed into the Council to petition that the Government have thrown up their hands in other member states and was subject to lengthy and despair and effectively said to the Commons, “Over to sceptical questioning. Then, like a prisoner in the you”. It is the most humiliating abrogation of leadership dock, she was led from the room to a windowless cell, and government in our lifetimes—but it is long overdue. where she was kept until the verdict on her proposals had been reached. A modest meal was brought in. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the After a number of hours, the verdict was read out to phrase in the Prime Minister’s Statement that, her and she was allowed to leave. This is the reality of “I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House”. “taking back control”; this is what it would be like, week in, week out, were we ever to leave the EU. In response to a question from the right honourable gentleman the leader of the Opposition, the Prime Before leaving for Brussels, the Prime Minister had Minister—if I heard her correctly—said that the made her petulant and ill-judged address to the nation. Government would not feel obliged to follow any Many in the Commons were angered by her attack on decision of the House of Commons that would cut them. What really rankled with me was the statement: across the commitments made in the Conservative “I am on your side”— Party manifesto. This seemed to me an extraordinary, by which she meant the side of the people. But this dangerous and wholly unacceptable statement, and it weekend has demonstrated that she is not on the side is quite possible that I misheard it. of the people. Noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will no doubt argue that a million people from across the Viscount Hailsham (Con): I thank the noble Lord UK on the streets of London, and 5.5 million people for giving way. Perhaps he also heard the phrase in the signing a petition, are only a fraction of the people. Statement: They are technically right. But how many people could “Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”. the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, summon on to streets Does he share my view that that means the Prime in support of the Government’s deal? How many people Minister is saying that, in the absence of an affirmative could the extreme Brexiteers summon up in support of decision by the Commons, no deal is now impossible? 1633 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1634

Lord Newby: That appears to be what the Prime the city last Saturday—some of them came from as far Minister is saying, but it is quite difficult to be certain away as the Western Isles, I believe—I really do not on that because she does not always—as in this case— want us to have to undergo another referendum, whatever speak with absolute clarity, assurance and consistency. the question might be, thinking of the delay and the ill To revert to my previous point, could the Minister feelingthatwouldinevitablybegenerated.Anymeaningful in his winding-up statement commit the Government renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement could not to aim in good faith to implement any decision taken be achieved without a long delay. The EU has made it by the Commons? I accept that the Government cannot quite clear that it is not open for quick negotiation any guarantee the success of every proposal, because some more. The alternative would be to have what I think at least would involve negotiations with the EU—but the Prime Minister referred to today as a slow Brexit, the House would be very grateful to get that assurance. which would result in our having to hold elections for the European Parliament. I think the public would Your Lordships’ House knows that we on these find that very difficult to accept, in view of the result of Benches believe that the only way forward is for a the referendum. referendum to give the people the chance to decide their future. This is not the cry of a metropolitan elite. There is also the option of a no-deal Brexit. I agree It is now the cry of the country. The teenager who got entirely with all the points made by the noble Baroness, up at 2 am on Saturday morning to travel to London Lady Hayter, about that. It is simply not acceptable, as by car and bus from Berwick on the Scottish Borders has been made clear by the other place, and by us too, was marching next to me to protect his life chances in a series of votes. Everything must be done to avoid from the consequences of a squabble in the Tory party. that. The risk is still there. However, the EU, which to He spoke for his generation and we must not let him our eternal shame has been ahead of us at every stage down. through this misguided process, has injected some discipline into the shambles at our end. It has thrown us a lifeline. We have been given extra time—but there 5.19 pm are conditions attached. Surely everything must be Lord Hope of Craighead (CB): My Lords, I have done to ensure that we meet the deadlines that have, in tried in previous debates to introduce some element of one way or another, been left for us. We must not miss light-heartedness at this stage of proceedings, but it the new deadline, or we will indeed have a no-deal has not been easy, and I am afraid I have rather given Brexit. up on Aylesbury. I feel rather like the unfortunate As one looks back, it is remarkable how, every so passengers who, on a flight today from London Heathrow often in moments of crisis, somebody on the world to Dusseldorf, found themselves in Edinburgh instead. stage says something that captures our imagination. The lack of direction and uncertainty with which we We can all remember Donald Rumsfeld, shortly before are proceeding makes it extremely difficult for me to the start of the second Gulf War, and the puzzling feel light-hearted—or, indeed, to say anything useful images he conjured up with his reference to “unknown in this speech. unknowns”—things that we do not know that we do I am at least in the happy position of speaking in not know.Noble Lords may remember Saddam Hussein’s this debate only for myself. I represent no party; I do absurdly comical Minister of Information, always in not speak on behalf of the members of the Cross-Bench military uniform, who, as the Americans were on the group; and to preserve my independence, I do not point of entering Baghdad, assured us that it was they discuss my views with any of them, and do not try to who were running away, and that the Iraqi forces had form any alliances. I am of course aware from previous won a famous victory. debates that the views I shall express are not shared Now, surely the prize must go to Donald Tusk. across the group. That will certainly become clear as There was his clever reply when asked by an enterprising others, much more qualified than I am to speak on Irish journalist at the end of last Thursday’s press this subject, follow me from these Benches. But I know conference whether that special place should be enlarged that I am not entirely alone in the view that I have to accommodate Members of the other place. Your expressed several times in this prolonged series of Lordships will recall his words: debates. That is, that the least unsatisfactory way out “According to our Pope, hell is still empty— of the predicament in which we find ourselves is—however hopeless it may seem now—to approve the deal. I that must have surprised some people— believe that the benefits that it offers, in security and “it means that there is a lot of space”. so many other fields, far outweigh the disadvantages He ended by saying that, as we know, hope is the last of that agreement, which are mainly the inevitable to die. Those words reveal what he is really thinking. consequences of leaving the EU.The political declaration Your Lordships may remember that that is a chilling is a different matter.But, unlike the withdrawal agreement, reminder of how people fought off despair during the it is a declaration only. It is not intended to be binding, Holocaust. He might perhaps have chosen another as an agreement is. It is there for discussion, and—with phrase, which your Lordships can find on Google: some change of mind, some greater flexibility—perhaps “Hope is a dangerous thing”. for manipulation, as we move forward. Those are the opening words of a lyric by an American As of this moment, awaiting what happens in the other songwriter Lana Del Rey. She said, place, the position, as I see it, is—looking at the alternatives—quite simple. With the greatest respect to “Hope is a dangerous thing for … me”, allthosemanypeopletowhomthenobleLord,LordNewby, but let us leave that aside. It is a dangerous thing for us referred, who came to London and marched through too. 1635 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1636

[LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD] —my right reverend friend Lord Williams of Oystermouth Donald Tusk was right, of course. It seems that all —reflected on this with characteristic thoughtfulness we can do now is hope for the best, as the Prime in a recent article in the New Statesman. He wrote Minister seems to be doing, but the danger is that if that, that is all we do as we thrash about searching for “two salient aspects of a consistent democracy are that we go on something that will command a majority, we will fail arguing, and that our freedom to do so is protected. The law to meet the next deadline. His words should act as a defends us from coercion and forcible silencing. Without these, warning that this really is our last chance. we have naked populism, a reversion to the situation where the powerful (in numbers, wealth or status) determine what is ‘right’. My hope is that the other place will back the only Genuine politics gives way to suppressed or threatened violence”. deal that is on offer in sufficient time, so that we can This is the chasm into which we are staring. Whatever leave in an orderly manner on 22 May. If that is not happens next, approximately half of us will be unhappy possible, one has to look for the next best alternative, and angry. We will need the kind of democracy that and I am driven to the conclusion that it would have to protects our freedoms and the values we hold dear. be to ask for a long extension—with all the consequences. For democracy to be exercised, the space where it is Sadly, that would, in the end, be my position. practised—whether in the real world or online—must be kept safe, and those who are called to serve must be 5.26 pm protected. This is not someone else’s job: it falls to all The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, following of us to call out hatred, abuse, intimidation and threat the Prime Minister’s Statement in the other place this wherever we see it happening. afternoon, it is clear that we remain in a place of deep The Church is in all communities and has learned uncertainty. We are still asked to note the two dates of how important it is to work across divides with others, 12 April and 22 May, signifying that there are at least of all faiths and none. Weunderstand that reconciliation two, probably more, very different directions we might must be placed at the centre of our life together. still take as a country. Across the diocese of Newcastle we will gather to share I shall not focus on the choices before us, but I note our hopes and fears for the coming months, and to that, whether by intention or default, we will make a pray together. I am encouraging people to light three choice—a choice will be made—and, beyond that candles: “One for me, one for my neighbour, and one choice, we have to live together. We are experiencing a for our shared future together”. time of extraordinary turbulence and toxicity in our My friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop political life, and it is how we navigate and respond to of Canterbury has challenged the Church to ponder that turbulence and toxicity now and in future that I how our actions will look a century from now. Will we shall address in the remainder of the time available to have stoked tension and hostility, or worked to defuse me this afternoon. it? Will we have demonised others with whom we Since taking up the office of the Bishop of Newcastle, deeply disagree, or called for civility and respect in I have had many conversations with MPs from the how we speak about and treat each other? The challenge diocese, who range right across the political spectrum. is to the Church, but all of us could do worse than to Without exception, I have been encouraged and moved ponder these words. Three years ago, it was our privilege, by their sense of public service and their compassion at the request of our local MPs, to open Newcastle for those whom they serve. They work extraordinarily Cathedral for a time of prayer for Jo Cox immediately hard, and they care. following her death. The huge response from members It is deeply disturbing, then, to see that a routine of the general public was deeply moving, but let that part of the daily working life of an MP is that they be both the first and the last such occasion. and their staff endure verbal assaults, attacks and threats. It cannot be right that carrying a panic alarm is now a 5.33 pm necessity for some MPs and that constituency offices Lord Bridges of Headley (Con): My Lords, here we and homes are considered as places of risk for them. go again, debating the same arguments for the umpteenth It is just under three years since June 2016, when time—I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said the Jo Cox was murdered. As a nation, we were horrified thirteenth—for some very simple reasons, which we and united in believing that this must never happen maybeabletoallagreeon.Buttheymaybeworthrepeating, again. Yet over the past few months, intimidation and simply because they may shed some light on where we death threats against Members of Parliament, including go from here. MPs from my diocese, have become so commonplace Brexit, as we now know all too well, is the biggest that they struggle to secure space in newspapers and political and social challenge that this country has on news websites. MPs on both sides of the conversation faced since the Second World War. The complexity of have been labelled as traitors, as being engaged in acts the issues and the enormity of what leaving the EU of betrayal. Anyone coming in or out of this building entails means that Brexit is a process that will take will have seen the placards and heard the shouting, much longer than many envisaged and some promised. and often it is women parliamentarians who receive It has divided our nation from top to toe: the Cabinet, the worst of it. the two main political parties, communities, families. Whatever the outcome of this week’s events, and To leave the EU smoothly, we needed to be honest whatever choice we make about our future relationship about the scale of that challenge from day one and with the European Union, the even more important build a consensus as to the way ahead. The Government question is: what kind of democracy and society will needed to negotiate knowing they had the support of we be left with? The former Archbishop of Canterbury Parliament and that they could deliver on what is 1637 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1638 agreed in the negotiations.Obviously,since the referendum Suchaprospectmayseemfanciful,untiloneremembers none of this has happened. In part, that is because the the point I began with: Brexit poses the biggest political UK’s relationship with the European Union has been and social challenge this country has faced since it poisoning the well of Conservative Party politics for fought a world war. Put like that, is it so peculiar to decades, and it has fallen to this Prime Minister to consider that we should come together,put party interests make that fateful choice: what matters more to the to one side and work together to leave the EU? At what United Kingdom—trade and access to EU markets, point does the need to end the uncertainty and to leave or control and parliamentary sovereignty? Fear of the EU with a common approach trump party allegiance splitting the Conservative Party totally asunder has and manifesto commitments? To me, it is clear that, meant that, years after the referendum, we still do not after 1,006 days, if we are to leave the European know the answer to that basic question. Union, we cannot and must not go on as we are. On Brexit, the biggest issue of the day, we do not If this withdrawal agreement is rejected again, and have a Government to speak of. Instead, we have a if, like me, you believe we should leave the EU—as collection of individuals grouped into factions; there 17.4 million people voted to do—then the Government is no collective responsibility. To say that we have a and Parliament must build a consensus regarding what Prime Minister would, sadly, bestow on Mrs May a we want to achieve. If we cannot do that, we need a level of authority she clearly does not have. I have new Parliament. We cannot continue to debate these been saying for months that the Prime Minister is in issues with extension after extension to the negotiations. office, not in power—the last week has proven that Let me end by saying this. Even if the withdrawal beyond doubt—so once again I wearily ask: where do agreement is passed this week, we will still need to we go from here? Sadly, the options are exactly the build that consensus as to our future relationship; same as those we faced 1,006 days ago: we leave with a otherwise, we will spend the foreseeable future trapped deal, we leave without a deal or we do not leave. The in the agony of this interminable debate, which is final option, revoking Article 50, is what the noble corroding trust in Parliament and undermining confidence Lord, Lord Adonis—I am sorry he is not in his in the economy. On an issue of such enormity as our place—is calling for in his Motion. Although I totally leaving the European Union—an issue which will disagree with him on this point, I respect and pay shape our nation’s future for generations to come—a tribute to his tenacity and principled stand. Parliament House divided cannot stand. voted to hold the referendum; the public voted to leave; Parliament voted to trigger Article 50; the public voted for Labour and Conservative MPs who promised 5.40 pm to honour the result of the referendum. We need to Lord Soley (Lab): My Lords, it is a pleasure to fulfil that pledge. follow the noble Lord, whose views I have known for Putting that to one side, I cannot see how a some time; I agree with very many of them, and he Conservative Government could possibly revoke gives this matter great thought. I agree with him Article 50. To do that we would need a general election; absolutely that this is a real political and economic or it would require a referendum, which, as things crisis for the United Kingdom. stand, is also impossible to deliver without a general I ask Members to bear in mind that those of us election. The next option is leaving without a deal, on the European Union Select Committees meet which the Prime Minister said continues to be the representatives of European countries on this issue. A default outcome. Ever since the last general election, it few weeks ago, I was in Bucharest, Romania, which has been obvious that Parliament opposes no deal. currently holds the presidency of the European Union, The Government may try to ignore Parliament, but if to talk about Europol and the future of the security they do Parliament would surely vote “no confidence” relationship; that includes, of course, the relationship in the Government on an issue such as this. Therefore, between the EU and the UK. The general feeling there no deal likewise requires a general election. The final is one of wanting the British to stay but recognising option is leaving with a deal. The only deal on offer is that it has gone beyond that, for many of the reasons the withdrawal agreement. That agreement will not now set out by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. What they change. The EU’s position is clear: take it or leave it. want now is for us to make a decision and move on, In the days ahead, Parliament might agree, via and to start building a relationship between the EU indicative votes, that it wishes to join a customs union and the UK, which we all know will be necessary. or the EEA. But even if Parliament reaches a consensus, This Sunday, I am going again to Bucharest, together I sense the very best that might happen is for this to be with my noble friend Lord Whitty, where we will be reflected in the political declaration, which, unlike the speaking about the future of the European Union. withdrawal agreement, is not legally binding. Parliament Interestingly, we will be there not just as observers but will still have to vote for the withdrawal agreement and as participants. But I ask Members to bear in mind put it into law. Furthermore, if the other place votes in that, when I go to such meetings, for the first time in favour of a Motion that the United Kingdom should my political career it is very difficult for me to answer join a customs union, and possibly the single market questions about what is happening in the British political as well, to implement it would break Conservative system—a system they have always assumed was among manifesto commitments and would appear to require the best and most stable in the world. I can only reply, the support of Labour MPs. Is the Prime Minister as I do at times, that we have not quite cracked it yet; I willing to do that? Are she and her Cabinet willing, as then like to tell them that that is a classic example of I have urged before, to bridge the party divide to British understatement. It is terribly difficult to talk to deliver Brexit? Europeans about where we are in this country. 1639 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1640

[LORD SOLEY] I end with a plug for the report we have just The reality is that the country is divided, the political produced in the European Union Select Committee, parties are divided and organisations are divided, but called Beyond Brexit; noble Lords might find its subtitle we have to follow the referendum—a referendum which slightly facetious: How to Win Friends and Influence should never have been held, frankly. Britain works People. We will certainly need to do that. We had so best when it has representative democracy; it has many friends and supporters throughout the European worked really well for this country for several hundred Union until this business happened. Now, we have years and we forgo it at our peril. Tragically, what one very few. They want us to go but they want a good never does is hold a referendum without knowing relationship, and they wish we had not decided to go what you will do if you do not get the result you want. in the first place. That is why we are in the mess we are in today. In both Houses, we have a duty to try to get this It is with some sadness I say that the other issue to moving. We must accept the withdrawal agreement be addressed is this: as a number of noble Lords have and then start working on the political declaration. said, we are debating this partly because of the state of Had we started on that two years ago, it would have the Tory party. I do not normally go around calling on formed the basis of a realistic and proper relationship Ministers or Prime Ministers to resign for the hell of between the UK and the EU. That is still a possibility it—there is not much future in that. But the present but we are coming to it very late. However, we need to Prime Minister has lost control. I was brought up do it and we need to do it fast. politically on the idea of Cabinet responsibility and unity. There is no Cabinet unity—arguably, there is no 5.48 pm Cabinet. That is a terrible state for Parliament and Britain to be in. We have to crack that problem. Lord Alderdice (LD): My Lords, the part of the Over time, I have come to the conclusion that we United Kingdom that I come from is still geographically need to accept this withdrawal agreement and to do so peripheral, but it is not politically peripheral at the fairly soon. But there are caveats to that. It has always moment, because of the backstop and border questions. been my view—not just in recent years but for a long When we were living through difficult and much time—that the British public were supportive of a more dangerous times, we looked for places where we European common market but never very supportive could find encouragement and inspiration. The European of the European state. In other words, the British project was one of those places. We could see that public tended to see it as a supermarket, not a superstate. those who had been at war, twice in a generation, had That has been the problem that runs through the core been able to find a new way of engaging with each of British thinking. It explains the power of the Brexiteers’ other—a way of moving forward with different strapline, “Take back control”. It was about not just arrangements, with creativity and flexibility, to make immigration but a variety of things: making our own something new and different and rather unprecedented. laws, being able to sack the Government and so on. For me, that was tremendously encouraging. The ideas That difference has never been resolved among the in many of the practical arrangements of the European British public in the way it was in Europe, which had a project were incorporated into our negotiations and far greater need for political unity because of the our way of thinking about things. horror of two world wars, defeat, occupation and I was also encouraged and inspired by your Lordships’ having borders changed by force. House. I came here in 1996 and found a preparedness Where do we go from here? I urge—as far as I am to engage reflectively, thoughtfully and creatively with able to these days, which is not so much in the other difficult problems. Subsequent to 1998, as Speaker of place—that the withdrawal agreement must go through. the Northern Ireland Assembly, I found myself coming Probably the best way of doing it is that put forward backwards and forwards to your Lordships’ House by Tom Watson MP, my colleague in the House of and finding it a restorative experience. I could return Commons. We have the withdrawal agreement and we to the Northern Ireland Assembly with ways of working must get it through soon, and then—I say this very and engaging that were thoughtful, creative and reflective, reluctantly and regretfully—we probably have to have and brought people together to find new ways of some sort of referendum at the end of it. I do not want resolving problems. that—as I have said, I do not like referendums—but I So for me it is a personally painful business to see am not sure how you avoid the trap otherwise. what has happened to the European Union and both We need to face the fact that the British public are Houses of Parliament here. A deep division has opened so deeply divided. The divisions are not just between up in the European Union itself, not just between parties and organisations, or business and trade unions; people in this country but between Governments and there is division within families.Young people in particular people and different sections of the community in are arguing to stay in, and the older generation is almost every country in Europe. Some come out on to arguing to get out. This is of such importance and we the streets to express their dissatisfaction with government cannot go on like this much longer. and Europe. Europe has for some people remained a I suggest there is a case for the Prime Minister to model, but for others it has become the cause of step aside so that we can have a more conciliatory division rather than a healing project. approach from a new Prime Minister. I would love to Even in your Lordships’ House, my sense of the see a Government of national unity for a time, to get past couple of years has been that people have held to us out of the hole we are in. Believe me, if you talk to positions and tried to defend and promote them rather people abroad about this, they cannot understand than understand that the deep divisions that have what has happened to Britain. It is tragic. opened up in our country and our continent are 1641 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1642 extremely dangerous and that we must find a way of “as things stand, there is still not sufficient support … for a third resolving them. That is why I identify strongly with a meaningful vote”. number of the comments that have been made but She said that the House has “expressed its opposition” perhaps most particularly with the words of the right to no deal and, reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. “may very well do so again”, I remember when John Hume was trying to engage and she said that, with the IRA and he asked it what it wanted. The IRA “the bottom line remains, if the House does not approve the said, “A united Ireland”. He said, “Look at the map. It withdrawal agreement this week, and is not prepared to countenance is one island”. It said, “There’sa border”. He said, “That’s leaving without a deal we will have to seek a longer extension”. because the people of Ireland are divided about how to Those three propositions are all true and one should share the island”. I well remember Dr Ian Paisley,known welcome this dose of reality. to us in latter days as Lord Bannside before he passed away.He would speak about the fact that he represented If I were going to be pompous, I would say that the people of Northern Ireland, because he clearly had what has gone wrong in the past three years—I hope the largest vote in repeated elections. But nationalists everybody has rejected the idea of my being pompous—is and republicans said that they represented the majority that we have forgotten that the Executive are responsible of the people of the island of Ireland. to Parliament. It has been the rule down the years that a Government who cannot sell their principal policies I hear the same kind of thing going on. People to Parliament change the policies or make way for speak about how they represent the majority and the another Government. Since Walpole’s time, the principle views of the people, but the people are deeply divided. of Cabinet solidarity has been that if you do not agree Neither side seems prepared to recognise that the job with the policy of the majority in the Cabinet, you of political leaders is to find a way for our people can leave the Cabinet and you shut up. The third principle live together, not agreeing on everything all the time—of is that at times of national crisis, the national interest course not. There are different perspectives and that is overrides the party interest. A Narvik brings out a not only legitimate but healthy. Whatever happens, we Churchill, a Churchill brings in an Attlee and a national will all have to continue to live together in Britain and consensus is sought. We come together. None of those Ireland, within Britain itself, and in Europe. We have three principles has been applied in full in the past to find a way of living together. One difficulty is that if three years. Indeed, they seem to have been flouted. one is so convinced of the rectitude of one’s own position and policy, one spends all the time attacking It is a pity that there was no national debate, or at the other and promoting one’s own approach. We least a debate with Parliament or within the Cabinet, would not have been able to deliver the Good Friday about what Brexit meant—and what form of Brexit agreement if there had not been serious efforts by all one should be aiming for and how. To set out those red those negotiating, in advance of reaching an agreement, lines at a party conference with no prior discussion in to indicate to people that there would have to be this House or the other place was a mistake. Keeping compromise, a coming together and a giving up of Parliament in the dark during the negotiations was a some cherished aspects so that we could find not an mistake. The Minister had to tell us again and again agreement but a way of living together. that he was not allowed to give us a running commentary. I am sure he found that painful; I found it painful to The time for us to do this is short. No vote, referendum hear it. It would have been better to have a discussion or election will bring our people together to find a way about the process; the product might not then have of agreeing a compromise. That requires political come as such a surprise. It was then a mistake to pull leadership.The truth is that all our parties have contributed the product out of the House of Commons for two to the division, either by themselves being divided or months, not allowing the meaningful vote, and it was by taking one side or the other of the argument. That probably a mistake to go on pressing it after the is the road to no town and a disaster. I appeal to massive failure of the first meaningful vote. Members of your Lordships’ House to return to what has been our tradition, our strength and our contribution On Cabinet solidarity, it was a mistake to make the to the country. By not having to be elected, we can deal the Prime Minister’s deal and not the Cabinet’s afford to be more thoughtful, creative and reflective deal or the Government’s deal. That was not wise. and engage with each other across party boundaries to Letting the principle of collective responsibility lapse find an accommodation that our people can live with has proved self-defeating. Threatening hard leavers so that we can not only live together on this island and with no Brexit and soft leavers or remainers with no in relation to the other island but in this continent of deal has produced the effect of isolating the Prime Europe. Without that, the future is gloomy for all of Minister in a very worrying way. us, whichever side wins the argument in a referendum What about country before party and reaching out? or an election. We have to find a way of living together. I was on the march. We marched past Downing Street and we called on the Prime Minister to think again. How 5.55 pm did she react? As has been said, she summoned the ERG to Chequers. I do not know why she always moves right Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB): I warmly applaud at a moment of decision. This morning, we see what I what was just said by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. suppose must be the ERG manifesto, in Mr Johnson’s I shall shock the Government Front Bench by column in the Telegraph, which has some rather odd saying that I rather like the Prime Minister’s Statement. aspects to it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said. I found three things in it that seem to be the beginning Mr Johnson says two things. First, we must, of wisdom. The Prime Minister says that, “come out of the EU now—without the backstop”. 1643 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1644

[LORD KERR OF KINLOCHARD] have blundered into results from a flawed process, So it is no deal: a customs frontier across Ireland, which broke with our basic constitutional principles—but forget about the Belfast agreement and forget about it is not too late to put that right. the peace process. I think that is irresponsible. The spectacle of the European Council last week was Secondly, he says: shaming. We saw a Prime Minister lurking in an empty “Extend the implementation period to the end of 2021 if room while 27 colleagues tried to help her find a way necessary; use it to negotiate a free-trade deal”. out of the corner she had painted herself into; we saw As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, no agreement a haggard Prime Minister,unable to stay on to participate —no deal—means no implementation period. It means in the Council’s debate on probably the most significant also that our trade with our biggest market is instantly issue of our time: western democracy’s relationship no longer free, and rollovers of existing EU trade deals with China. For Britain to be silent—for Britain to be with third countries become hugely more difficult and absent from such a debate—is shocking. A good test, rather unlikely. This is instant economic disruption. at moments of difficult decisions, is to ask oneself This is what the Chancellor calls catastrophic. Avoiding what Peter Carrington would have thought and done, this is now paramount, as the CBI and the TUC supposing he were in the Cabinet today. When, on the rightly said, last week. They believe that an Article 50 last day of January, we remembered him in the Abbey— extension and a new approach are required. No more with the help of the noble Lords, Lord Luce and “my way or the highway”. Some 85% of CBI member Lord Carrington; with the Grenadiers’ “Slow March” companies apparently think that an Article 50 extension and “Nimrod”; with memories of Nijmegen; with is better than no deal. I am not surprised, given the memories of Carrington alongside Kissinger and Schmidt; Government’s own economic analysis of no deal. and memories of Carrington as Secretary-General of NATO—we remembered someone who deeply believed Those views of the CBI and the TUC were pretty in the European Union, for precisely the reasons so well represented at the European Council by President brilliantly explained in Parliament Square on Saturday Tusk and Chancellor Merkel. They do not want no by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. He believed deeply deal; they know how damaging no deal would be to that this country mattered, that we had a vocation and them and how much more damaging such an outcome that we should make sure our voice was heard. He was would be to us. It seems that our Prime Minister was someone whose voice certainly was heard, who understood still arguing then—though today’s Statement is a little parliamentary democracy and the need to put country different—that there was only a binary choice for the before party and honour before ambition, and who United Kingdom: her deal or no deal. It seems that knew what to do when something went wrong. she was evasive when pressed on the chances of her deal being approved. She seems to me to be honest Our friends in 27 countries have thrown us a lifeline, today in her Statement. She refused to countenance provided that we can “indicate a way forward”—the any plan B, and I think the European Council concluded phrase in the Commission’s text—which could, and I that she did not have one. It was her counterparts in hope will, mean ourselves by 12 April to a process to the European Council who ensured that the conclusions seek a national consensus on a negotiable outcome. mean that, as President Tusk said afterwards, I hope we will: better late than never. “anything is possible: a deal, a long extension if the United Kingdom decided to rethink its strategy, or revoking Article 50, which is a prerogative of the UK government”. 6.07 pm The ball is now in our court and we have, at last, to rise to the level of events. What we need is time to Viscount Hailsham: My Lords, it is always a great stop and think. I do not believe that the European pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. There Council would have difficulty agreeing to a substantial are very few in your Lordships’ House who have Article 50 extension, provided we satisfy the Council’s greater experience in these matters than the noble only condition, which was that we should be able to Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is one other, if I “indicate a way forward”. I do not believe that that may say so. I say to my noble friends that I associate way forward need be very detailed or specific—indeed, myself very strongly with what the noble Lord said. I it would not be. After 1,000 days of no national say, too, that I hope the Government have heeded his debate, it would be crazy suddenly to try to produce a advice. In anticipation, given that the noble Lord, new answer in a fortnight. What we need to indicate—I Lord Foulkes, is to follow after my few remarks, I will think this would be sufficient—is that, at long last, a say that it is not insignificant that he and I, who have process to decide the future is being set in train. Here, I been in the Chamber on opposite sides for over 30 years, echo the noble Lord, Lord Bridges: if Brexit is to go on this matter happen to agree. On this issue there is ahead, we need a process to decide the best balance of tremendous cross-party consensus. autarkic sovereignty and common purpose, and of The decision of last week’s European Council obliges independent action and identifying mutual interest. I Parliament and the country to make a decisive decision, think the noble Lord put it better than I have, but that and we must do so. We have three choices: to approve is the dilemma: finding that balance, and a process to the Prime Minister’s deal; to leave without a deal; or to determine whether, after at long last a genuine, and seek a lengthy extension, during which the country genuinely informed, national debate, Brexit should go and Parliament can reconsider their options. Without ahead or whether our Article 50 notification should be hesitation, I support the latter option. I am not a withdrawn—in either case, with full democratic Europhile and never have been, but believe strongly authorisation. The broken, blindfold Brexit that we and on pragmatic grounds that staying in the European 1645 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1646

Union offers by far the best future for the United a variety of alternatives will become available, and, if Kingdom, Europe and the wider world. I believe that the Commons thinks it appropriate, a further referendum Brexit defies both reason and all credible evidence. will become part of the deliberative process. Contrary to the view expressed by my noble friend I doubt that Mrs May can or should preside over Lord Bridges of Headley, with whom I almost always those discussions. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, agree—he is a very old friend—I do not think the 2016 implied and as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, referendum is an authority for leaving the European whoever is the Prime Minister must be a person who Union, whatever the outcome of the negotiations. commands respect in the House of Commons, across I believe it was an instruction to the Government to the political divide and in the country as a whole. He negotiate the best terms that could be achieved, leaving or she must also be credible in Europe and on the over the issue of who decides whether the terms are international stage. In the conduct of the talks, in the acceptable. In my view, that final decision is one to be formulation of policy and in taking the consequential made by Parliament, and perhaps by the country in a legislation through Parliament, the Prime Minister further referendum. I agree with the view oft expressed will have to seek support from all sides of the House. by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others that there Although such considerations might not definitively can be no objection in principle to holding a further identify who should be the next Prime Minister, they referendum, although personally I would prefer it to be most certainly will identify the unsuitable. Now is not held on the ultimate agreement rather than on Mrs May’s the time and No. 10 is not the place for clowns or for deal, which, by its nature, is interim and transitional. those who indulge in fantasies. In the wake of their policies would come economic damage, international As regards participating in the coming European isolation and considerable humiliation. I hope that in elections, I acknowledge that there are practical difficulties the coming votes the House of Commons will take full to be confronted, but I do not believe that it is respectable advantage of the opportunity that has been afforded to argue that participation in a democratic process is to it. Parliament and the country can and must think offensive in principle. Indeed, I can see great advantages again. in having a vigorous election debate and seeing the United Kingdom represented—I hope sensibly—in the European Parliament in what I also hope will be 6.16 pm for an extended period. I support participation in Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op): My Lords, those elections to secure a lengthy extension. it is indeed a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, I turn directly to the choices that now have to be Lord Hailsham—an old adversary of mine in the made. In my view, to crash out of the European Union other place. As noble Lords have heard, he is a very without any deal would be a national calamity. I do powerful advocate, and it is much better to be on the not believe that there is or ever was a national desire same side as him. I agree with almost everything that for such an outcome. Last Saturday’s march and the he has said today but I want to make it clear that I petition now signed by over 5 million people speak to totally support the Motion to revoke Article 50 in the this. Moreover, no deal was decisively rejected in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis. House of Commons by 413 votes to 202. For government I need to explain why I have adjusted my view since or parliamentarians to disregard such a vote would be the last time I spoke, which was some time ago. Unlike to display a contempt for Parliament of the grossest the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I have not spoken in all kind. I hope I can gain some reassurance from today’s 13 of the debates—mind you, he gets better as he goes Statement, where I see that the Prime Minister said in along. When I last spoke, I said that, although revoking the House of Commons: was my preferred option, I reluctantly agreed that we needed a referendum to finish the job because it started “Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”. with a referendum. However, that brings me back to The proper interpretation of that is that, unless there June 2016, when I was against having a referendum. I is an affirmative vote in the House of Commons, no have always been against that. Indeed, the nicest thing deal will not happen. It means nothing else, and I very that Gisela Stuart ever said about me was that I was much hope that when my noble friend Lord Callanan against a referendum. In fact, that is the only nice winds up this debate, he will confirm that interpretation. thing she has ever said about me. As to Mrs May’s deal, I would support it only if One reason I was against it was that in referenda nothing else were on offer. However, I do not accept people vote for reasons other than the question on the Mrs May’s oft-repeated statement that her deal is the ballot paper. I remember that in 1979 we did not get a only deal available. That is simply not true. It is clear Scottish Assembly because the Callaghan Government that the European Council has given us an opportunity were unpopular after the winter of discontent, and to think again—to discard the red lines which the there has been no less popular Government than the Prime Minister so unwisely drew. Moreover, it is highly Cameron Government when we went into the referendum unlikely that the House of Commons will support the in 2016. My view is that that is why a lot of people Prime Minister’sdeal. I therefore hope that the Commons voted in the way that they did. will vote to secure a lengthy extension to the deadline. This referendum was corrupted and there was cheating If—I hope, when—that occurs, Britain should reconsider in it. There was overspending, as the Electoral Commission whether it wishes to leave the European Union. It may has said. Indeed, as I understand it, the High Court be that, as a result of those discussions, modified terms has said that, if it had been a mandatory referendum, of membership will become available. In any event, it would have been illegal. However, it was only an the red lines should be discarded. If they are discarded, advisory referendum, so it did not matter that all those 1647 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1648

[LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK] Finally, having followed my old adversary, the noble mistakes were made. However, that reminds us that it Viscount, it is a great pleasure for me to hand the was an advisory referendum, so it should not be taken baton over to the person described by my noble friend by the Government as an instruction. on the Front Bench—

One might challenge me that the same applied the Noble Lords: Baroness Hayter. last time I spoke about the referendum, and indeed I said much the same about it then. What has changed? Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I hand the baton to the What has tipped the balance? Above all, as the noble person described by my noble friend Lady Hayter as a Lord, Lord Tugendhat, rightly said, there has been a national treasure: that is, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. sea change in public opinion since then. Now, all the implications of Brexit are known—people are made aware of the reality. It may be okay for Farage with his 6.24 pm wealth, or for Rees-Mogg with his trust in Ireland, but Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB): My Lords, I am ordinary people are beginning to realise that it is a rendered almost speechless, but I shall try. I have no disaster. This is being shown, first, in opinion polls. desire to add to the reservoir of recrimination into An analysis of 200 opinion polls showed that a majority which so many words have been poured because of of between 6% and 12% are now in favour of remain, Brexit. But, despite the kind words of my noble friend whereas in June 2016 it was a majority of about 3% or Lord Foulkes and my cherished former research student, 4% for leave. A second indication is the march on the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, I Saturday of over a million people from every part of must confess that I am still struggling to absorb quite the United Kingdom—not the metropolitan elite, as how a formidably resourceful country with a deeply some say. They came from every corner of the United mature parliamentary system, and which nurtures a Kingdom and tramped through London to express real pride in its gift for international statecraft, could their view. That shows strength; coming to London to have come to such a pass as a destabiliser among the express that view takes a lot more than just going to constellation of nations in Europe and the wider world—a the ballot box. nation that other countries can no longer read. What Thirdly, the petition is astonishing, the biggest there have we done to ourselves? What will become of us? has ever been: to date, over five and a half million In that context, it dawned on me earlier this month people and rising at the rate of a few hundred thousand that the number one target for British intelligence every hour. The petition is not for a referendum: it is surely now is us. Since, nearly three years ago, we to revoke and stay. I am glad to say that it was started moved temporarily into a strange new country—let us by a 77 year-old lady, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell call it “Brexitland”—we have become a mystery even and I—I declare an interest as chair of Age Scotland—do unto ourselves; so much so that in a column in last a lot to promote the advantages of older people taking Friday’s Tablet, I respectfully suggested to the chairman initiative. The fact that Margaret Anne Georgiadou of the Cabinet Office’s Joint Intelligence Committee took this initiative is very encouraging and the fact that he commission a special assessment under the that five and a half million people have already followed heading, “Brexitland: Questions Facing the UK”. her is even more so. Such an assessment might touch on a range of themes that are in play: future relationships with the It is still possible to argue that we should nevertheless EU, obviously; Britain’s wider place in the world after have a people’s vote—a second referendum—to prove withdrawal; the sustainability of the very union of the the case. Leavers are not keen on a second referendum; UK and the prospects for a Scottish separation in the does this indicate that they are not confident they early 2020s; the social, economic and regional inequalities would win again? Perhaps it does. However, one of the within the UK; the stress testing of UK institutions, strong arguments against having a second referendum including Parliament, the party-political structure and now, and for asking Parliament—urging the other the Civil Service; the durability of the UK’s international place, in particular—to agree to revoke Article 50, is alliances, including the special nuclear and intelligence that the period of time needed for a referendum would relationships with the United States; prospects for the continue the uncertainty; we might also end up with UK economy, research, innovation and technical more lies and cheating unless we tightened up the education; and the enhancement of UK soft power, rules. For a variety of reasons, I am not in favour, as I the transmission of values abroad and the restoration have said. There would be more jobs lost, just as we of a relatively rancour-free national political conversation are losing jobs in every part of the United Kingdom at at home. Perhaps the Minister, when he gets back the moment, because of the threat and uncertainty. to the department, could get on the phone to the Parliament now needs to step in, take up responsibility Cabinet Office’s joint intelligence people and tell them and accept that no Brexit is good for Britain. The best what I have just said. option is for us to remain part of the European When it comes to my own future assessment—as a Union—but remain and reform. Not just in Britain remainer but not a second referendum man—I carry but in other countries of Europe, people think that the an optimism about the longer-term prospects for the European Union needs reform. Every institution needs UK, provided that the cumulative effects of living in reform, including even—some people think—the Brexitland do not leave us wallowing in a resentful institution that we are in now. Britain could be leading torpor blighted by mutual scapegoating. Every generation in Europe, not leaving Europe; that should be our needs a flag to which it can rally, a banner upon which slogan. So I hope we can send a message to the other it embroiders its shared aspirations. The banner under place to revoke withdrawal. which my own, early post-war generation lived, for 1649 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1650 example, was particularly lustrous, very much woven we change our domestic law, the European Union by the great collective experience of the Second World (Withdrawal) Act 2018 still means we are due to leave War. What went into its embroidery? The answer is: on 29 March—this Friday. We are in a position that the Beveridge report on welfare of 1942; the Education nobody sought to be in and to which I do not believe Act 1944; the full employment White Paper of 1944; the Prime Minister intended to lead us. the formation of the National Health Service in 1948; Unlike my noble friend Lord Newby, I have not the placing of a collective security roof over all of this spoken in all 13 debates.This is the first time I have spoken with the creation of NATO in 1949; and, from the late in a Brexit debate since 5 December, on the very first 1940s onwards, the transition from Empire to day of the very first debate ahead of the first meaningful Commonwealth. vote, which was pulled and did not happen. I have not What we need now,especially in these highly polarised felt the need to speak on the grounds that absolutely times, is another shared banner. We would all have our nothing changed between the Prime Minister proposing individualaspirations,buttherearethreeIwouldembroider her withdrawal agreement in the autumn and last asapriority,forwhichIthinktheremight—justmight—be week. Even with the negotiations in Brussels last week, a new consensus once we are through Brexit. These I might not have felt the need to speak this afternoon. I would be: to do for social care what 1948 did for health; might have felt that the deal the Prime Minister had a very substantial building programme of social housing agreed in November was not adequate then and remains based on a public/private mix; and to get technical inadequate. It is a sign of how far the Prime Minister education right for the first time—after all, we have has managed to divide her own party, Parliament and been trying to do this since the late 19th century. the country that, whereas sh thinks that her deal is the If we can rally to a new banner, we might take not willof thepeople,Parliamenthasdefeateditcomprehensively only ourselves pleasantly by surprise but our European on every possible occasion. neighbours and the rest of the world, in our ability to I did not need to stand up and say that, but I bounce back and cohere once more. In the meantime, wanted to stand up and speak after listening to the I hope that the Prime Minister gets her deal through Prime Minister’s speech to the United Kingdom last the House of Commons and that Friday 12 April does Wednesday evening. It was a disgrace that she felt she not go down as one of the bleakest days in our history. should say to the people, “I’ve understood you. Take We have most definitely not been living through a finest no notice of Parliament, I know what you all want. I hour, but a finest hour just might be there for the am speaking for you, but those other politicians aren’t”. living if only we can get across the Brexit barrier and There is nobody in your Lordships’ House or the plant that shining flag on the other side. My Lords, I other place who is not trying to do their best for this live in hope. country, whether we agree or disagree with her deal, and whether we are remainers, leavers, remoaners or 6.28 pm born-again leavers. We are all trying to do our best Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD): My Lords, the and most of us are trying to work in the national noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, suggested that now is interest. The idea that the Prime Minister should try not the time for clowns. But one thing I was musing to pit herself and the people against Parliament is not about over the weekend was how both David Cameron helpful to our democracy. It will not help us come and the current Prime Minister, Theresa May, seem to together as a country. It will not lead to the sort of have had problems with timings. David Cameron thought United Kingdom that we should all be seeking, whether that he had worked out the perfect timing for his or not we leave the European Union on Friday. referendum—May 2017—to give himself two years to The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out earlier that negotiate the reforms that he wanted in order to have a referendum is, in many ways, an alien device, which his 60:40 vote to remain in the European Union. But is not the norm in this country. Certainly, when we then he decided to bring the referendum forward, entered the Common Market, Edward Heath, the then boxed himself into a corner, got a damp little squib of Prime Minister, was very clear that a referendum was a deal, and the referendum, as we all know, went the not appropriate. Both Clement Attlee and Margaret wrong way for him. Thatcher used the idea that referendums were the devices Theresa May has spent the last two years telling us of dictators and demagogues. That language of that exit day is 29 March 2019. I thought I would referendums as dangerous devices is often used in the check the lyrics of the song that includes the words: literature. However, I am speaking from the Liberal “Isn’t it rich? Democrat Benches. My former leader, Mr Clegg, came Isn’t it queer? out in favour of a referendum ahead of the Lisbon Losing my timing this late in my career”. treaty, so my party has form in supporting referendums. It goes on to say: “But where are the clowns? In the 1970s, Edward Heath was very clear that the There ought to be clowns people’s view should be listened to, and that it would Well, maybe next year”. be, through a parliamentary vote. That was how we We are in very difficult times. The Prime Minister entered the Common Market. However, times have has led us to a point where we now do not even know changed. The 1975 referendum on whether to stay in whether we will leave the European Union, with or the Common Market set a precedent, which caused without a deal, on 12 April. We spent 15 to 20 minutes opinion to change fundamentally. I should perhaps earlier trying to work out whether international law declare an interest in that I am editing a handbook on trumps domestic law on the date of possibly leaving European referendums—possibly as some sort of the European Union. Many of us believe that, unless sadomasochistic activity—in my spare time. At a 1651 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1652

[BARONESS SMITH OF NEWNHAM] What has been the role of this House in the Brexit workshop for the book which I hosted in Cambridge process for the past two years? I think the history last year, John Curtice pointed out that referendums books will not look upon us favourably. It is true that are now in the British DNA. The 1975 referendum was we have played our traditional constructive part in the first, but the referendum in 2016 will almost certainly amending legislation, but our collective wisdom should not be the last. have offered more inclusive solutions than has been I was very clear that I did not support a referendum the case. Instead, the great majority of our members but, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench at have tried to belittle the sentiments of those who voted the time of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, leave. Repeatedly, we have been told that people did it was pointed out to me that I had jolly well better get not vote to make themselves poorer. That sentiment behind my party’s position to support it. We did; we all reveals nothing about the leavers, but it does show that campaigned in the referendum. However,I was very clear remainers see the issues through an economic perspective throughout, on every platform that I spoke on, that if only, and that retaining and protecting one’s investments the vote was to leave, that was not an opportunity to are the only possible values. This should not be so. simply keep rerunning referendums. I said that before It is not only in this country that voters have seen the 23 June 2016 and I have said it from these Benches since. profound failings of the EU, and are trying to stem the Referendums are dangerous devices, but there is one flow of those failures into their own lives. Right across thing that is potentially more dangerous than having Europe the populist and nationalist movements are on another referendum, and that is Parliament saying it the rise. Southern states are left to stagnate, with recession will revoke Article 50 without any further reference to and youth unemployment. The former Communist the citizens of the United Kingdom. More than 5 million states are rejecting the orders from Brussels about borders, people may have signed a petition and 1 million people environment and migrants. Minorities are in fear for may have demonstrated on Saturday, and I absolutely theirlives.Germanyalonebenefitseconomically,although agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that there even that is stalling. is a sense that the 2016 mandate is becoming dated. The wealthier EU states do not help the poorer: There may well be a case for asking the people, “Theresa they leave them to flounder. There are no shared values May is sure her deal represents your will. Does it really?”. anymore. On the contrary, human rights are being If the Prime Minister is so sure that she understands devalued as never before since the end of the Second the will of the people then surely there is no difficulty World War. The central Government in Brussels grow in asking them again. ever more distant from those they purport to govern. IdidnotmarchonSaturdaybecauseIhadapre-existing France is in the grip of riots. The German AfD has commitment to speak in a debate in Cambridge, which representatives in the Reichstag. Hungary,Italy,Austria, your Lordships might expect to be the metropolitan the Czech Republic, Estonia, Sweden, the Netherlands heart of remain. However, the debate was in fact full of and Poland now have the far right well represented in leavers, who were saying, “Democracy is about us. We government. No wonder the EU is fearful for the made our views very clear”. That even included former electionsinMay,whicharelikelytoincreasetherepresentation remainers who said they respected the result of the of extremists. referendum. In a democracy, people have the right to Leavers have rejected, in a once-in-a-generation change their mind. I fundamentally believe, as I always opportunity, the failings of past empires, whether have, that Britain is better in the European Union. I Austro-Hungarian, British, Roman, the Soviet Union’s, ought to declare an interest that, in my capacity as Yugoslavian, American, French or Ottoman. Starting reader in European Politics at Cambridge, I receive with the best of intentions of bringing security and European funding. That might not come as a surprise peace to disparate peoples, they inevitably brought to anyone who has read any of my writing. However, I repression and diktats as soon as local preferences am also a democrat and I fundamentally believe that if were expressed. The EU is simply a return to Europe’s we change the outcome of the referendum and end up imperial past, and it is not even able to defend itself in a different place, it has to be because the citizens of but is reliant on NATO and in thrall to Russia. the United Kingdom say that that is what they want. We need this country to come together. At the This top-down governance lacks the elements of moment, Parliament is deeply divided, which is a perfect loyalty and shared burdens that characterise national reflection of the country. A general election will not get states. Over the decades since 1945, these states have around that. Maybe, just maybe, another referendum spent more and more of their budgets on helping their would. However, the idea of taking part in European own citizens in times of hardship, and yet somehow Parliament elections should not be used as a weapon those who benefit from the EU have managed to to try to stifle debate. Whatever people think about the create a mindset that sees the union of European European Parliament, it is directly elected and a form states as the only legitimate liberal opinion that one of democracy, and it should not be used as a way to may hold. Voting leave was described as an unforgivable try to silence opposition to the Prime Minister. act of dissent. It had to be described as a protest vote, a vote by the uneducated and aged and a vote that has to be repressed. 6.39 pm What is going on now to stop leave is another Baroness Deech (CB): I feel in a very lonely position manifestation of the intolerance that faces political this evening. I have tried hard to be persuaded by the and religious speech regarded as deviating from the arguments of the remainers, but my head and my acceptable view. This is where the hatred and bigotry heart will not go that way. arise again, against those who do not accept the 1653 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1654 universalist ideologies, or as a reaction to legitimate obligations or a fundamental change of circumstances. national expression being put down. Individual freedom For once, I have my pupil, more brilliant than I, the throughout history has been better protected in noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on my side. Should the UK independent states than in conglomerations. In short, come to the conclusion that the EU was keeping it as the EU undermines national loyalty, it creates a locked in a backstop unreasonably, it could claim a fertile soil for extremism and hatred. Democracy cannot material breach of the withdrawal agreement. Both flourish eventually in a superstate, as history has shown. parties will be obliged to work towards a specific It is therefore legitimate and far sighted to seek to result—namely,toconcludeanagreementthatsupersedes retain our independent democracy and not risk further the protocol by the end of 2020. Unreasonable delays exposure to the forces that may yet bring an end to the by the EU, or negotiating in a manner that does not latest dream of empire. take account of the objectives of the UK would be a breach of the principle of good faith. What advice can we give our colleagues in the other place? Certainly not to take control themselves. Not only A permanent backstop would undermine the Good is that a constitutional outrage and a very dangerous Friday agreement. If the EU threatened that, it would precedent for future majority governments, but there be inconsistent with its best endeavours and good-faith is no clear majority in the Commons for any particular duties. If the backstop became permanent by default, path. It is not possible for the EU 27 to deal with the without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, Commons—or will they be represented by Speaker this would amount to a fundamental change of Bercow? One begins to see why there is sense in the circumstances under Article 62. Article 1(4) of the royal prerogative in dealing with foreign affairs, as was protocol expressly states that the withdrawal agreement almost universally understood until the Supreme Court is meant to be temporary. If it became permanent, this judgment in Miller concerning Article 50. Moreover, would be a fundamental change, and the longer it one can be sure that were MPs to come up with one continues, and the worse the consequences for Northern solution commanding a majority and present it to Ireland, the stronger the legal argument that Article 62 Brussels, it would be turned down, for the clear aim of would apply. The UK has withdrawn unilaterally from the EU has been from the outset to prevent our 52 treaties since 1988. All these were multilateral leaving, or make it so unpleasant that no other state treaties. We cannot, therefore, be bound permanently will ever dare to rebel against the centralised powers. in international law by an agreement if one of its terms We did not vote to be humiliated, but that is what has is that it does not establish a permanent relationship happened, and we should never again entrust our and is meant to be temporary. The fears surrounding sovereignty to other states. That is the lesson. this are ill founded. Bad though the May agreement is, if I were an MP We are left with three outcomes: revoking Article 50 I would probably hold my nose and vote for it. I urge and/or a second referendum, no deal and the May the other House to pass this deal. If it does not, the deal. Revocation would have no democratic basis. On plans of the venal and the apparatchiks in Brussels are the contrary, it would be a betrayal of the universal to delay Brexit for year after year until it vanishes, and franchise and especially the democratic rights of the there will be no escape from the downward spiral of public. It would be a disfranchisement by those who the EU. Brexit is within our grasp—just a few more consider themselves best able to govern of those for votes, and we have it. Otherwise, it is gone for ever, whom they are expressing contempt, an attitude that with our sovereignty and our respect for individual should have ended more than 100 years ago. A second freedoms. referendum would quite likely, in my view, be won by leave again, on the basis of not wanting to be bullied. 6.49 pm Moreover, given the accusations of ignorance last time, are we certain that all the electorate are on top of the Lord Howell of Guildford (Con): My Lords, it is a backstop and all the other provisions of the agreement? pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, If leave won again, we would have the same practical who speaks with such clarity and authority. Although problems. If remain won, that result would be rejected I do not agree with everything she said, I agree with with the same strength as leave is rejected now. much of it. These occasions have begun to acquire a sort of What about no deal? Despite the Prime Minister’s ritualistic quality. Time after time, there is always the statement, I maintain that legally it is still on the table. noble Lord, Lord Newby, pronouncing the obituary of Unless Parliament changes primary legislation, it is the withdrawal treaty, although somehow it goes on. still there. None the less, despite the allegations of Its death is somewhat exaggerated. The noble and learned chaos, I believe we are more prepared for the logic of Lord, Lord Hope, tries to cheer us all up with his attempt no deal than is generally put about. No deal—that is, at light-heartedness. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, trading under WTO terms—is what we may well get puts it all in a wonderful historical perspective. The on 29 March. It has advantages, it has disadvantages. noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, tells us that everything It is not popular, but it is feasible and logical. It would on offer is unacceptable, although in this case I think jump-start the EU 27 into proper negotiation. her lovely story about everyone being out of step did What,then,of thePrimeMinister’sdeal?Thewithdrawal not quite add up, because all the people she mentioned, agreement is not a treaty for all time. The weight of or most of them, want to be in step with the Prime legal opinion, which is at least sufficient to defend a Minister in agreeing the withdrawal treaty. It seemed legal challenge, is that Articles 60 and 62 of the Vienna she drew the wrong conclusion from her story, but Convention on the Law of Treaties allow termination never mind. We have to say these things and no doubt of a treaty for a material breach by one side of its they will all be said again by all parties. 1655 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1656

[LORD HOWELL OF GUILDFORD] herself. Portraying the treaty otherwise is malign and UnlikethenobleLord,LordNewby,Ihaveconsiderable mischievous, or the product of narrow legalistic sympathy for the Prime Minister and her frustration contortions by the lawyers. I should not say this, but I about the membership of the House of Commons. Of sometimes agree with what Shakespeare had to say course, there are many hard-working MPs of great about lawyers. integrity. Some of us spent decades in the House of As for all the talk about Mrs May going, this really Commons and we did our best, but of course there are is a mad time to be suggesting such a thing. The also some—and there always were—who really do try chairman of the 1922 committee has apparently been anybody’s patience, like Disraeli’s flies in amber. One to see her about resigning. The late Lord Whitelaw, wonders how the devil some of them got there. with whom I worked very closely, had a wise adage I have been astonished at the cavalier disregard of about parliamentary life at Westminster: never take some MPs for the facts or the truth, especially in any notice at all of the 1922 committee’s view. It was commenting on the so-called Prime Minister’s deal. always wrong. That is what he said, more than once. Actually, of course, it is a carefully worked out 585-page I have urged the Prime Minister, and I urge her again, treaty, drawn up painstakingly between EU and British to make the next meaningful vote on the withdrawal representatives over a long period. Thus from certain treaty a matter of confidence in Her Majesty’s MPs, journalists, academics and lawyers who should Government. I am convinced that that is possible under know better come statements that, “The withdrawal the 2011 Act. Of course, it is a gamble and a risk, but agreement binds us permanently into subjugation”. no greater than the risk she is taking at present. It That is nonsense. Another one says that we “remain would have a powerful effect on all but the most for ever under ECJ rules”. That is not true. Another myopic hardliners, as well as on a good many sensible says that we pay billions “for nothing”, which is nonsense social democrats in the Labour Party—not, of course, again, or that we remain trapped, et cetera. Others the leadership, but that is a different story. If she won have talked idiotically about penal servitude, the EU we could move on to the task of working out modern torture chamber, putting us at the mercy of our commercial arrangements with the EU and the rest competitors, or being plunged by the Treasury into a the world. If she lost—and that is the gamble—under spiral downwards into oblivion. These views have the 2011 Act there would be a fortnight of limbo and come from both sides, from the hard-line Brexiteers then a general election, for which the European Union and the hard-line Europhiles. would certainly grant any further time necessary. In Others keep insisting that the referendum is being fact, it has indicated as much. It would take about undermined, when in obvious fact the treaty reflects seven weeks to get a general election under way and the referendum result. What it undermines is the totally organised. It could therefore take place in mid-May. It antidemocratic view that the majority takes all and the is certainly not what I want and it would be really minority can be ignored. That is the deadly straight messy, with the vote split in every direction in various road not to democracy, but to majoritarianism and constituencies between official party candidates and demagoguery. It is the point—I am afraid we are breakaways, between Conservatives and independent getting quite near it—where populism hijacks democracy. Tories, between Corbynite Labourites and more sensible social democrats. But a new Parliament would have a As to the backstop mentioned by so many, the good chance—a better chance than the present one—of doom-mongers and our dear lawyers again keep saying— being less paralysed. It could well have an ad-hoc here is their latest—that there is, majority for the withdrawal treaty and for meeting the “a long-term risk to … the integrity of the United Kingdom”. overwhelming wish of the British people for settling This is nonsense. All sides insist that it should be only withdrawal and moving on. temporary. There it is again in the Prime Minister’s But, of course, none of this needs to happen. Why? latest letter, as in her Statement, that, Because a confidence vote would be a smack of firm “the backstop is unlikely ever to be used, and would only be government and would bring over further sensible temporary if it is”. ERG doubters, and there are quite a few of those. Of That cannot be reconciled with the statements that course, the deepest diehards in my party will remain some prominent MPs and columnists consistently make, outside because, sadly, they are now beyond reason, ignoring the facts, referring to bondage and eternal beyond conservatism and, when one examines their entrapment. Such statements are utterly twisted and pronouncements, beyond truth. Calling a linked distorted. The withdrawal agreement does none of confidence vote—the bold, high-risk course—could these things. It is a transition document—a necessary now deliver the majority needed and the great issues of first step on a long journey. It is an exit, as ordained by our times would be decided in Parliament, in line with the referendum, but an orderly one. It takes us decisively our model of democracy, and not in the streets, where out of the European Union and opens the way decisively democracy does not belong and never did. to new trade relations in a changed world and to catching up with Asia, which is rapidly moving ahead 6.58 pm of the western world in almost every respect. After transition we are free of the EU’s worst overcentralising The Duke of Somerset (CB): My Lords, “I’m 16 … and outdated features, but we remain good and close Your Vote,My Future”. That was a placard photographed neighbours—possibly even closer neighbours than we on the front of the Evening Standard and published on have been—and not all that far, ironically, from what Friday.One headline said that 1 million people “marched the rest of Europe is increasingly arguing for and what to stop” the Brexit “madness”; another one said that the prospective next German Chancellor is arguing for over 5.5 million people had signed the petition to 1657 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1658 revoke Article 50. I do not imagine that Mrs May even on the edge of the cliff, to come to our senses and to noticed these headlines, or looked out of the window. realise that this agony, this disruption, this cost and So caught up is she in saving her position and her deal this division are not worth it. for her party that she ignores any other opinion. One of the main failures of Mrs May’s deal is the The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, joked at the start lack of detail over our future trading arrangements of the last debate about the need to find something with the bloc in the political declaration paper. This is fresh to say—but he is only partially correct. Most of a vital part on which our prosperity will depend. It what noble Lords have suggested in these debates has leaves our economy at the mercy of negotiations over been ignored or rejected in the Prime Minister’s single- the next few years. I agree with the Motion of the minded pursuit of her deal—a deal unacceptable to noble Lord, Lord Adonis. Let us revoke Article 50 and right or left, remain or leave; a deal that leaves us in admit that we were wrong, perhaps confirming it by a chaos; and a deal compromised by premature, people’s vote. Too much to hope for, perhaps, but then unachievable red lines and a determination not to history will judge those who get it wrong. yield to any other point of view. Even now, days before our scheduled exit, it appears that she would prefer to 7.04 pm plunge the country over the cliff in a no deal, if and Lord Lilley (Con): My Lords, the most precious when her plan is rejected. commodity in political life is trust, and trust depends The fate of the Prime Minister is irrelevant to most on keeping your promises. We saw what happened to of the public. They crave a statesman, which the noble what was once a major party in our country when it Viscount, Lord Hailsham, alluded to; a leader to take broke its solemn pledge on tuition fees: it was reduced control and acknowledge that most voters in the to a rump, and even now, nine years later, with both referendum, whether they voted leave or remain, did major parties in disarray, it is unable to regain its not know the cost or the implications of leaving. They position. Both major parties were elected in 2017 on a certainly did not vote to become poorer. I disagree pledge to implement the referendum decision, and the with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—the economy is Conservative Party was specific: that meant leaving most important to them. Nor did they vote to make the customs union and the single market. If we do not this country a laughing stock—which it is rapidly keep those pledges, we do not just put our party becoming in the foreign press—to devalue the pound, fortunes at risk. We undermine trust in our whole to see the Treasury spend millions on stockpiling political system. essentials or to turn Kent into a huge lorry park. When, on 7 March last year and again on 4 October, President Tusk offered the United Kingdom a Canada- The Prime Minister has not done much to bring the style free trade deal, he correctly stated that it was the country together, but has instead alienated Members only type of trading arrangement between the United of Parliament in an attempt to blame them, rather Kingdom and the EU compatible with our promises than herself, for this chaos. We need a statesman to to leave the customs union and the single market. That put country before party, to explain to voters why the is why I greatly regret that the Government did not Brexit promises of 2016 are not on offer or available, take up that offer. If I were in the other House, and to show that it is impossible to leave without I might, with extreme reluctance, vote for the withdrawal damaging the UK economically and culturally. I refer agreement, since the alternatives being offered are again to the wonderful Erasmus programme, which even worse. However, if it is defeated, I hope the has provided so many of our young university students Government, Parliament and our political system will with invaluable experience of studying abroad. look again at President Tusk’s offer. Most certainly, in It is, above all, our young people who are going to the time available, we will not be able to secure it be most damaged by a hard Brexit—hence the placard before we leave, in which case we must be prepared to that the young boy was carrying, to which I alluded at leave on WTO terms. the beginning of my remarks. They are the ones, A year ago, it was quite reasonable to be worried mostly disenfranchised in 2016, who see their prospects about what leaving on WTO terms, with no withdrawal and horizons narrowed by this insane desire to stop agreement, would mean. People had specific and concrete our citizens moving around and working throughout concerns. The planes were not going to fly. There were Europe. Indeed, the inward migration pressure from not enough licences for drivers and hauliers to operate eastern European countries is diminishing, as wages on the continent. Trains would not be able to find a rise rapidly in those countries and their people see the platform in Paris, apparently.Problems with the electricity “Not Welcome Here” signs illuminated at Dover and supply in Ireland were threatened. Derivatives would Heathrow. cease to be valid, which would lead to the collapse of Wehave rehearsed endlessly the threat to our businesses the whole banking system. I could go on. There were and industries, and the incipient dearth of labour to worries, too, about shortages and congestion at Dover. service our agriculture, our hospitality and health Now nearly all those concrete and specific concerns industries, to name a few—but to no avail. It is that have been resolved by a series of mini-deals, reciprocal mantra again: the will of the people. Somehow it is arrangements and pragmatic measures taken by us, by democratic to ask the House of Commons to vote the European Union and by individual countries such three times on the same Motion, but undemocratic to as France, Belgium and Holland. ask the nation to reconfirm its opinion of three years The opposition spokesperson began her speech in ago. However the next vote goes this week—if it December by raising that concrete threat that planes happens at all—we have generously been given some would not fly.Planes will fly,however,because—although extra time by the EU to make up our minds, to stand news of it did not reach this House—on 13 November 1659 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1660

[LORD LILLEY] All these scares about shortages of food and so on last year, the EU said that it would introduce legislation are absurd. One that really worries people is the idea to allow our planes to fly over, land in and return from that there will be a shortage of medicines. I hear it the EU, if the UK reciprocated. We have: deal done. repeated all the time, even though, on 25 February, the There were concerns that if we became a third country Government put out a Statement listing everything to the EU and it to us, there would be only 1,638 licences they have done to ensure that medicines get through. available for all our lorries. The EU has said that it will Even if there are hold-ups somewhere, there are stockpiles create licences for our lorries to operate over the next in this country and the Government said that, year. It has also backed British membership of the “the supply of medicines and medical products should be common transit convention, to which we now belong, uninterrupted in the event of exiting the EU without a deal”.—[Official and has promised to work with us in the European Report, Commons, 25/2/19; col. 3WS.] Transport Ministers’ committee, which covers 48 states They urge people not to stockpile, because the one and will provide licences for our lorries to operate thing that could create a shortage is panic buying, as it throughout all 48 states in and around Europe. Trains could of any commodity at any time. will run. Electricity will operate in Ireland, because of The result of all this has shown up in the debate today, the measures and changes the Irish Government have where noble Lord after noble Lord has threatened us made.Derivatives have been sorted. Visas will be available with calamity, catastrophe and disaster if there is no to our citizens to travel on the continent, as long as we deal, but none has mentioned any specific calamities, make reciprocal arrangements for continentals to come catastrophes and disasters, because they know, in their here,whichwewill:anotherdealdone.Allthesemini-deals heart of hearts, that they have been resolved and have been done, and it is to the Government’s credit prepared for. Problems you prepare for do not happen, that they have made them, although they are rather coy as we discovered with the millennium bug. If you have about it, because they are still trying to frighten my additional capacity for ferries as back-up in the event colleagues in my former House into voting for their deal. that something goes wrong, it means you have resolved Most of the concerns about shortages, of everything the risk and we should recognise that. from food and medicines to Mars bars and water, were It is essential, however, for those who want us to due to fear of congestion at Dover and Calais, because prolong the whole process to demonise the possibility additional checks might be needed. But Her Majesty’s of our leaving without a withdrawal agreement, hence Revenue and Customs has said it will not need to carry the resort to this lexicon of lurid adjectives about out any additional checks at Dover in the event of no calamity, catastrophe and disaster, previously used by deal or a free trade agreement because, even if there the same people in reference only to the calamity that are tariffs, they will not be collected at the border. As faced us if we did not go into the ERM, the catastrophe the chairman of HMRC said, they are paid computer that faced us if we left the ERM, the disaster that to computer, not by someone handing over a cheque faced us if we did not join the euro and the appalling through the window of a lorry as they pass through situation that would result, according to 365 economists, Dover. That is true of duties at present. The checks if Geoffrey Howe’s Budget went ahead in 1981. That made are based on intelligence, where there is reason was followed by eight years’growth, just as our departure to believe that there is tobacco or alcohol—dutiable from the ERM was followed by eight years’ continuing goods—or drugs or illegal immigrants, and officers growth. We should not believe these abstract concerns therefore have to stop vehicles to look for those things. that people have now that the concrete worries have But they are few and most are carried out away from largely been resolved. the port. Their frequency is not expected to change, The remaining fears are much more concrete and because those risks will not change after Brexit, so concern the certain application of tariffs if we leave traffic will flow freely through Dover. and there is no free trade deal. Then, our exporters Concerns were then raised and focused on what would face EU tariffs. They average 3% or 4% on our would happen in Calais. Most of the problems that goods.Our exporters have gained 15% in competitiveness caused us to operate Operation Stack for 211 days through the movement of the pound since 2016, so over the last 20 years—10 days a year on average—arose most are better placed now than they would have been, from problems in Calais, when there were strikes, even with those tariffs. Some will face higher tariffs, immigrants blocked access to ports or trains, and so but we will be in a position to help them. The total bill on. People feared that, if the French were not ready, it for this tariff of 3% or 4% on our exports will be would create congestion at Calais, backing up across £5 billion to £6 billion, but we will be saving £10 billion the channel and leading to congestion in Dover. But to £12 billion every year in our net annual contribution the French have moved with commendable speed and to the EU. So we will be well placed to help farmers efficiency. I recommend that colleagues and noble and the car industry—those facing the highest tariffs—to Lords who have not already done so look at the cope with those tariffs and adjust to them. website of Douane Française. They will see the smart We should not just look at the negatives. There are border arrangements that will be put in place in Calais, positives, too, if we leave without a withdrawal agreement. which it is believed will ensure that trade flows freely First, we will not have conceded £39 billion with nothing through that port. The French are worried, and make in return, which we would under the withdrawal it explicit, that if they do not enable trade to continue agreement. Weshould be prepared to go to international uninterrupted through Calais, they will lose that trade arbitration confident in the advice that this House to Zeebrugge, Rotterdam and Amsterdam, which are gave, concluding: well-prepared and eager to take the trade from them. “Article 50 allows the UK to leave the EU without being liable So there will be no congestion at Calais either. for outstanding financial obligations”. 1661 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1662

Thesecondadvantageisthatitwilltruncateuncertainty, This comes in the context of devolution and related which, under the withdrawal agreement or a prolonged issues. It is a shame that we have not had the political extension of Article 50, will continue for between vision to go for a federal, or at least confederal, 21 and 45 months. Wewill put that to bed, not necessarily United Kingdom, in which the Scots could feel Scottish, to everybody’s liking, but it is better to end uncertainty the Irish could feel Irish, the Welsh could feel Welsh—and and enable business to plan and get on with life. even the English could come to feel that it is good to Finally, it will force a resolution of the Irish border be English. People would also see, however, that to meet issue. As recently as last month, Simon Coveney, the the world’s challenges it is essential—not just an Irish Foreign Minister, said that, in the event of no deal: option—to co-operate. If that is true of the United “There is an obligation on the Irish and British governments, Kingdom, it is true of worldwide society as a whole. and the EU to try and work together to find a way of avoiding Having said all that, I have just one other fundamental physical border infrastructure on this island”. point to make. There is a deep anxiety—we all encounter It can be done. It will be done if we leave with no it in our relationships and so on—about the adequacy withdrawal agreement, and that will open the way for of the body politic. How capable are we of facing up us to have a free trade arrangement between Britain to, grasping and beginning to handle the fundamental and Europe, covering the whole UK, which I hope will challenges? That makes it absolutely unthinkable that, enable us to trade profitably and amicably in the future. in whatever way we decide to move forward on Brexit, we do it without seeking the approval and endorsement 7.19 pm of the people as a whole. Otherwise, we will be making the decisions on behalf of people who have no confidence Lord Judd (Lab): My Lords, if there is one thing I in us. That is not a sound basis for the future. agree with the noble Lord about, in his interesting We have an unwritten constitutional tradition in speech, it is the importance of trust in our political which consensus is very important; we may not talk system. We are in a major crisis. Historically, that will about consensus but there is an underlying sense that be true for many years to come. What worries me is you have to carry the nation as a whole with you in that the public have lost confidence in our political whatever you are doing. From that standpoint, it may institutions and the way they work in the context of well be that we have to face further changes in our own the Brexit debate, and that confidence will take a very constitutional arrangements, not just in those with long time to rebuild, because it goes beyond the Brexit Europe. We cannot, however, arrogantly assume that, debate itself. having almost set out to bewilder and disturb the The paradox of our situation is that just as the population about our own capabilities, we can then young—look at the schoolchildren who are showing us make the strategic decision on our own. Whatever is howtheyseetheirpriorities—arediscoveringthattheworld recommended—whatever comes out of this—must be is totally interdependent, and that we have to stand put to the British people. together in the interest of humanity, so many people in I also believe that—to be true to what I have been Britain want to march in the opposite direction. I find talking about—leadership, in its best sense, becomes that—not to overuse the word—a tragedy. If political indispensable. It is not a matter of fixing, or concocting, leadership, at a juncture like this, is about anything, it arrangements and deals; it is a matter of vision, of is about enabling people and helping them to understand standing up for what you really believe in and having the realities of the world in which we live, to meet the the vision to portray the challenges, what is necessary challenges inherent in that and to rise to the values that to meet them, and the destiny we seek for our country. are essential if we are to meet those challenges. We do not have that anywhere in our political system When we talk of values, one other thing that has at the moment. We must all take that to heart—and come out clearly from the Brexit story is that we talk until we get that right, our democracy will be in about British values but it is not at all clear what deep trouble. We must rediscover leadership, vision, British values are. There are people in Britain—as was purpose and principle. We must know what is good demonstrated by the million people marching on Saturday, and what is wrong. and the petition with five and a half million names—who Compromise of course will be involved. That is not want to belong to the world and want us to be an a bad thing: I often reflect that compromise is the embracing, inclusive society. But there is also a political moral centre of politics. But we must distinguish the trend in our society—we are not alone in Europe in good compromise from the bad compromise—the good this respect—that positively rejects that concept and one that enables the nation to move forward and the sees a xenophobic, exclusive future for our nation. If I bad one that will set you further back, on the slippery am allowed to use a word not often used in our slope to some kind of hellish, nationalistic, myopic, debates, love is absent and hate prevails. hateful society. We seem to be in danger of making the Wehave a tremendous challenge to leadership here—I wrong choice in that context. It is time for leadership, was very struck by how well that was spelled out by and I hope that we rediscover that leadership before it the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle is too late. earlier in our debate. But there are other issues. For example, in the age of globalisation there is a distinct 7.28 pm sense of insecurity among many ordinary people; they yearn for a sense of identity in society. What may Lord Kerslake (CB): My Lords, Brexit debates in come out of the Brexit saga, therefore, is a realisation this House have become a bit like buses—the buses in that we have to re-examine our political institutions London at least—if you miss one, there is no great pretty fundamentally if we are to face the future. concern because another will be along shortly. I think, 1663 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1664

[LORD KERSLAKE] process, it is just possible to see how you might come however, that in today’s debate we are finally reaching to this view. But it was never going to be easy and hard a critical point: there is literally no more road to kick choices were always going to have to be made—choices the can down. that have been consistently ducked rather than debated When I last spoke on Brexit in this House—on and decided. It is worth remembering that Ministers 9 January, just before the first meaningful vote—four strongly supporting Brexit held the key positions in things were clear to me. First, the Government’s deal the Government during the period. The Brexit process would be defeated heavily in the Commons and deserved has their name on it. If the Brexiteers want to find out to be. Particularly with this deal, it is not the end of who is responsible for the current state of affairs, they Brexit; it does not bring closure on Brexit; it would need only look in the mirror. continue for years to come. It is like the film “Groundhog For the rest of us, we have lost nearly three years: Day”, but without the laughs. Secondly, despite the 1,000 days of our lives that we will never get back. In preparations that have been referred to, we were not the circumstances, the public are entitled to have the adequately prepared for a no-deal Brexit. The risks if final say on the way out of this mess. That is why I was it happened were simply too great to be contemplated. glad to go on the march on Saturday. Thirdly, the only way out of the parliamentary impasse Finally, I will say a word on patriotism. It is just was to hold a second referendum. Fourthly, extension over 75 years since my father’s Avro Lancaster was of Article 50 beyond 29 March was inevitable. Those shot down over Germany. He was just 18 at the time were my views on 9 January. On the first three, nothing and spent the rest of the war in a prisoner of war has happened to change them. On the final one, we camp. He suffered a back injury that stayed with him have, belatedly, an extension, albeit too short. for the rest of his life. He was, though, one of the lucky Like others in this House, I listened carefully to the ones. Four of his crew, of similar ages, failed to get out Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon. Even with the of that plane and were burned alive as it came down. extension, we are in the extraordinary position of After the war, my father came to understand the potentially being just weeks away from leaving the EU damage done to German cities by the Bomber Command without having an agreed basis on which to leave. This raids and dedicated a good part of his life to building week, we face the possibility, not the certainty, of a links with Germany through town twinning. This is third meaningful vote if the Prime Minister thinks she the kind of patriotism that I understand—not the can win it, and then a series of indicative votes by the blustering nonsense of some of the ERG—Britain Commons on the options were she not to succeed. I and Europe together, national and international. laud the intention of those promoting a vote on the Europe is becoming a dangerous place with the rise options, but I have some doubts that it will secure a of militant nationalism. Britain can be part of challenging clear path ahead in the time available.In these exceptional this or it can contribute to it through its actions. When circumstances, I think that the Civil Service has a duty the debate about borders and backstops has gone, the totheCrownandthecountryaswellastotheGovernment. key test of whether we have got this right is whether It must be allowed to give us its full and unvarnished those four crew members did not give up their lives too assessment of the impact of leaving on 12 April without early, for no good reason. a deal. From what I understand, it would not make pretty reading. 7.36 pm The Government were wrong to seek a short extension and the EU has not given us the time necessary to do Baroness Altmann (Con): My Lords, it is a pleasure justice to the debate on the fundamental options that to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It is also we need. We need a proper pause to the process to a matter of deep regret that we are here yet again allow the country to reflect on its future choices. This debating the same issue, but we are where we are. means either securing a long extension or, as I would We have heard a lot this evening about democracy. now favour, revoking Article 50, as proposed by the Democracy, however, is not fixed in stone. When people noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in his Motion. Having to vote, they rely on what they are led to believe at the hold elections to the European Parliament would be timebypoliticiansmakingpromisesandgivingreassurances. an inconvenient but small price to pay given the scale Election manifestos are never normally sacrosanct. of the choices that we are now faced with. Indeed, much of past manifestos has never materialised. Three words have characterised the recent Brexit We have respected and honoured the result of the debate: humiliation, betrayal and patriotism. There is referendum. Some suggest that we have not; I find that no doubt in my mind—and, indeed, among the vast difficult to comprehend. To quote George Orwell, majority of the British public—that the Brexit process “all political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same has been an utter humiliation. The EU has been as way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be united and clear-minded as we have been divided and ignored when they are unwelcome”. muddled. When and if the dust settles on all this, we The facts are that the red lines set in the beginning, will certainly need a full public inquiry to learn the dictated by the ERG, were and are impossible. The lessons from this most unhappy period. promises of the leave campaign are undeliverable. One Those favouring Brexit have spoken long and loud million people marched on Saturday for a chance to recently about its betrayal—by the establishment, by vote now—now that they know more about what Parliament and by the Civil Service. If you started out Brexit means—and 5.5 million people have in a matter with the belief, as many Brexiteers appeared to do, of days signed a petition asking to cancel Brexit. Our that Brexit was going to be an easy and painless democracy must be able to adapt to these changes. 1665 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1666

The Prime Minister, cajoled by the ERG, refuses to to the challenge that the current crisis is causing. consider that the course that we are pursuing may not I respect the fact that many noble Lords are extremely be the will of the majority now. How can we possibly reticent about the idea of going back to the people—I know that? How can it be anti-democratic to ask am myself—but this started with the people. Maybe people’s view? If the Prime Minister’s deal is what we need to let it end with the people. people want, why not prove it? If 17.4 million people wanted a hard Brexit, let us prove it. I find it difficult to understand how the Government can insist that the 7.44 pm British people cannot change their mind after two or Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB): My Lords, I agree three years but Parliament can be asked to change its with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, mind in two or three weeks, as the Prime Minister puts has said. her deal to MPs again and again. It is time to face While I sympathise with the Prime Minister, like reality. Government and Parliament have not been others I was angry at her broadcast from Downing able to find a way forward to implement the referendum Street on Thursday evening. From the outset she has result, and no deal must not be allowed to happen by faced Parliament with a choice between two irreconcilable default. However, sadly, I struggle to see that this threat courses: freedom to make our own trade deals and set has actually gone, notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s our own tariffs on the one hand, and the absence of welcome words at the Dispatch Box earlier today. border controls between Northern Ireland and the On 12 April the Prime Minister’swithdrawal agreement Irish Republic on the other. At the end of his speech, and political declaration will most likely not have the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, dismissed this problem by passed. She will have a choice: she can stick to her saying it would have to be solved and would be. But it sacred duty to deliver Brexit and be consistent with has not been solved; hence the need for the backstop, her statements that “no deal is better than a bad deal”; which has been the principal obstacle in the way of the she can ask for a further extension, and thus have to House of Commons agreeing the departure agreement. fight EU elections; or she can revoke Article 50. I Your Lordships’ House has now offered the other cannot be confident she will choose the latter course. place a way of resolving that dilemma through our Parliament may not even be sitting, so what would amendment to the Trade Bill calling for a customs stop us leaving with no deal? union in a free trade agreement with the European I cannot share the sentiments of my noble friend Union. I will not rehearse here the advantages of that Lord Lilley, whose reassurances are of no more comfort course, but I hope that there may be an indicative vote to me than those about the easiest trade deal in history pointing in that direction in the House of Commons we were going to enjoy; about the rolling over of the this week. In any case, it is a matter for the negotiations 40 deals we already have with other countries, ready to on our future relationship. The issue for today is how go by 28 March—or about the ability to have our cake we escape from the impasse the country is in. and eat it. All the reassurances so far given by the The European Union has now given us a clear Brexiteers have proven false. It is simply not safe to choice. One option is for the other place to accept the ignore the TUC, the CBI and businesses large and departure deal, and we are told it must be agreed this small across the country—or indeed our obligations week. In that case, the way ahead is straightforward. under the Good Friday agreement—and suggest that We have until 22 May to pass the necessary legislation leaving without a deal is somehow okay. to bring the deal into force. But the Prime Minister has We need to find another way forward, and, as my said that she is not in a position to put the deal to the noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley has said, this is other place this week with any hope of success. She not the time for party politics. Toquote John F Kennedy: clearly hopes that that position might change, but given the shortage of time ahead of us that prospect “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for must be remote. The alternative, if we are not to leave the past—let us accept our own responsibility for the future”. without a deal on 12 April, is to ask for more time. We could revoke Article 50. That is in our power. However, We do not want a Tory or Labour answer. We want a like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, I better answer than we have had so far. That, as my think that unlikely and also wrong in the absence of a noble friend Lord Hailsham and other noble Lords further decision by the people. have wisely said, would suggest to us that we need some kind of Government of national unity to see us If the departure agreement is not passed and the through this Brexit situation. UK is granted more time, possibly at the cost of running candidates in the EU parliamentary elections, The Prime Minister has even said that she has tried what would that extra time be for? The EU has ruled to work across the House to find an alternative way out renegotiation of the legal aspects of the departure forward. That has simply not happened. There have agreement, and I believe it. It is willing to change the been no free tests of the opinion of the country’s political declaration but will not get down to negotiating elected representatives. The assertions that other options the new relationship until the departure agreement is have been rejected are not right. Whipped votes are in force.A further delaycould not be used for renegotiating not an indication of parliamentary views. the legal aspects of the departure agreement or for Time is short, but Back-Benchers across Parliament starting the negotiations on the new relationship. It ideally need to work together in the national interest could be used for more attempts to win Parliament round to unscramble the Brexit mess. Indeed, Brexit is rather to the departure deal, but if that is to be achieved it like trying to get an egg out of an omelette: you may would be better to do it now than to prolong the get some egg back, but it will be broken. We must rise uncertainty. 1667 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1668

[LORD BUTLER OF BROCKWELL] brightest and best civil servants to international Another purpose for a longer delay would be a organisations. Are we seriously suggesting that we are further referendum. I have argued the case many times going to say to the British staff in the UN, the WHO, in this House that democracy, properly understood, NATO and all the other international institutions that would give the people the final say on the terms of our a British Government can turn round and abandon departure from the European Union. I do not resile them? Is the Government going to renege on all the from those arguments today, when that outcome may promises they made and leave them without a pension? just possibly be coming into sight. Is this the modern face of Conservatism? I have come to think, like others, that the least worst I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is not course is for the House of Commons to pass the Prime here to hear that, because he needs to hear it. I read in Minister’s deal this week, for Parliament to pass the Hansard that Dominic Grieve said: necessary legislation by 22 May and for the Government “I have never felt more ashamed to be a Member of the toturntheirattentiontonegotiatingthefuturerelationship Conservative party”.—[Official Report, Commons,20/3/19; col. 1123.] with the EU under a leadership with fewer red lines than When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I feel that the present one. So, to my surprise, I found myself in a way. This is not the party I joined. The party I joined is position similar to that of the noble Lords, Lord Lilley one that behaves honourably—as, in fairness, does the and Lord Howard of Lympne—although I reached Labour Party.The Labour Party also behaves honourably: that conclusion by a very different route. we honour the commitments that we make. However, if that is not to be achieved and a longer The European Council has not changed its position period is to be obtained, I agree that it should be used very much. Its statement says that it, for the purposes so eloquently described by my noble friend Lord Kerr, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, “agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019, provided the Withdrawal and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. We should recognise, Agreement is approved by the House of Commons next week”— however,that the outcome of further discussions between in other words, by departure day, 29 March. The the parties can be validated only by a further vote of Council says that, as long as we approve the agreement the people—and it must be clear that if that is the course by the date we set to leave, it will give us an extension— on which we are to embark, that will be the outcome. which it has little option but to do—to tidy up the legislative framework. Otherwise, if that does not happen, the European Council, 7.50 pm “expects the United Kingdom to indicate a way forward before”, Lord Balfe (Con): My Lords, it is always somewhat 12 April. daunting to follow a Cabinet Secretary in this House. May I begin by reminding noble Lords of my interests Not voting on the deal is not going to end the as chairman of the voluntary pension fund of the matter. The European Council expects us to indicate a European Parliament and a number of other jobs in way forward. It does not say, “The House of Commons Brussels? The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has disappeared, can have indicative votes and people can say that they but I assure him that I do not subscribe to the calamity do not really count”. We—our Government—have to and catastrophe scenario. I think that we should stay come to a conclusion and put it forward to Brussels. I in the European Union because it is the right thing to suggest to this House that the only logical proposal do. If we left we would, of course, survive. We are the would be an indefinite extension of Article 50. I do seventh biggest—or eighth biggest, depending on how not think that there is a mood to revoke it, but it is no you count—economy in the world. There would certainly good extending it for a matter of weeks; Europe is be difficulties, but they could certainly be overcome. about to go into its five-yearly cycle of reconstitution. TheargumentforEuropeisnotanargumentaboutwhether There will be no European Parliament after 15 April, we can get bananas through ports; it is an argument until 2 July. Immediately after the European elections about what is the right place for Britain in the European in May, the European Council will select a new president world. to replace Donald Tusk—or perhaps his term will be The right place for Britain is at the heart of Europe, extended. There will be a new foreign affairs supremo and in the European Union—something, incidentally, to replace Federica Mogherini—or perhaps she will that we have never been. I have lived through 25 years continue in office. Then every country will be asked to in the European Parliament and a subsequent 15 years put forward a candidate for commissionership, and all doing jobs in Brussels. This is my 40th year in Brussels through the autumn the European Parliament will in one capacity or another, and I have never known a hold hearings on the candidates, asking them what full-hearted endorsement of the European Union, their policies are—probably confirming most of them save by two people. One was Edward Heath and the but, as it likes to do, rejecting a couple of them, because second was John Smith. They were the only two party it will want to demonstrate that it has the power to do leaders whom I met who were really committed to that. building the sort of Europe that I want to see. Sadly, So do not imagine that we in the United Kingdom John Smith never got the opportunity to do it. I think can come up with a plan and people will then say, “Oh, he would have turned into one of our great Prime that’s good, we’ll drop everything and do that”. Nothing Ministers—but let me move on. worthwhile will happen in the European Union between I am appalled by the people on the Brexit side who roughly 12 April and 31 December.The new Commission talk about us renouncing our bills. These are debts will take office on 1 January, so there will be a long that we incurred sitting around a table and voting for interregnum. I suggest that the only way of dealing them. We incurred them by sending some of our with that is to have a long extension of Article 50—and 1669 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1670 the only long extension worth having is, as some of my I have been one of the millions of people who have European colleagues in Brussels have suggested, an signed the parliamentary petition calling for the revocation indefinite extension, which would take all the pressure of Article 50. We need the time that that will buy us to off the different dates. look at Brexit again and, as a country, work out what We in the United Kingdom have been very self- we seek before starting negotiations, rather than the indulgent. Our European colleagues are fed up to the other way around. back teeth with the Brits. At the last Council meeting, The May premiership is in its death throes. Colleagues Mrs May did not, shall we say, distinguish herself. say that she is now irrational and unstable. She should, There was a feeling at the end of it that people still did in my view, resign. not know what exactly Britain wanted. That is why they have offered this little package, which adds up to 8.01 pm virtually nothing. So we need a period of reflection, and we probably need a good period to work out Lord Ricketts (CB): My Lords, I am delighted to exactly what we want. At the end of that period, follow what the noble Lord said about Article 50. He Article 50 may well be revoked. Many people would and many others have used the word “humiliation”, like it to be—although, incidentally, some people in and I think there is a lot of truth in that. I think we are Europe would not. seen around the continent as a country that has lost its way in a bizarre fashion: a once great nation now caught Do not think that the French Government are up in an endless psychodrama. I have sensed that the necessarily unhappy at the prospect of being the only mood in Europe has hardened against Britain over the one of the P5 in New York. Do not think that the past few weeks and months. For much of the negotiation French diplomatic service is necessarily unhappy at that the Prime Minister conducted, they were prepared the thought of being able to lead political co-operation, to give us the benefit of the doubt. It would be like any as it did before we joined. There is not unalloyed joy at other European negotiation: it would be tough, there the idea of keeping Britain in. But our traditional would be moments of drama but in the end there friends—in Scandinavia and the rest of northern Europe, would be a deal. The Prime Minister would go back the Dutch and the Danes—badly want us to stay,because and get agreement for it in her Parliament and it we provide a balance. This is all too often forgotten. would be done. Decisions in Europe are made by qualified majority As the meaningful votes have come one by one and voting, and if Britain and the northern European she failed to get agreement, I think the mood has countries take a position, we can normally form a darkened. I think it changed first to incomprehension blocking minority. If we are absent, that can be done and now to exasperation—and even to humour. Noble only with the assistance of Germany.A German Cabinet Lords may have seen that the French Europe Minister, Minister once said to me: “When you object to something, Mme Nathalie Loiseau, said that she had renamed her you are just a nuisance. When we object to something, cat Brexit because every time she got up in the morning, our Chancellor’s picture is on the front of every paper the cat mewed furiously to leave the house, but when with a moustache drawn on her face—so we need she opened the front door, it did not want to go out. It Britain there because you are the common-sense country then transpired that she may not have a cat at all, but that helps to drive this project forward and keep it on the point is right. an even and sensible keel”. Of course, this is not a laughing matter. The noble For all those reasons, I hope that the other place Lord, Lord Hennessy, is not here, but I shall trample will come to the conclusion that it wishes an indefinite on his place to say that an argument can be made that extension to Article 50. I think that is probably the lastweekwasperhapsthegreatestinternationalhumiliation most sensible option for this country and the best way for a British Prime Minister since the Suez crisis. Then, forward, and I commend it to the House. noble Lords know well, the Americans put their foot down and declared that we would stop our invasion of Egypt, running a UN Security Council resolution against 8 pm us and threatening to pull the plug on sterling. Lord Truscott (Ind Lab): My Lords, it is a pleasure That was a brutal end to British pretensions to great to follow the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, power status but a salutary lesson, which put British Lord Balfe, who of course was a very experienced foreign policy on to a different basis for the future. Member of the European Parliament. Perhaps there will be something salutary about last We need to hold our hands up after almost three week, but you have to look quite carefully to find it. years and say that we are not ready to leave the EU at We saw the Prime Minister open proceedings with a the moment, and will not be ready to leave in April or petulant letter as if, somehow, the Europeans were to May either. The negotiations have been a shambles blame for the decision she had had to take to delay the and a national humiliation, as many noble Lords have date of 29 March. She then went to Brussels, failing said today. entirely to convince her colleagues that she could win I said back in December that we needed time as a a third vote or that she had any kind of plan for what Parliament and a country to sort ourselves out, to to do if she lost it. extend or revoke Article 50 and to scrap the withdrawal I think that at that point, her colleagues thought: agreement and the political declaration in their entirety. we have to take this over and find a way that the As the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said, the British are unable to find themselves. When can a EU says that it will not renegotiate the deal. Fair British Prime Minister have cut such a lamentable enough—let us look at an entirely different model. figure at an international meeting? 1671 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1672

[LORD RICKETTS] down on the fundamental choice referred to by the If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, there noble Lord, Lord Bridges, of what future relationship was more to their deal than he suggests. It was a very we want with the EU. clever way to do two things: first, to open up some I think it may have also expected that that would space in British politics for new thinking to begin to trigger off a rather wider cross-party consultation take hold; secondly, to avoid the blame for their having than the event at Chequers yesterday. Perhaps that pushed Britain out on 29 March or not allowing it to wider cross-party view will begin to emerge if the Letwin come up with other options. They avoided the sense amendment passes in the other place this evening. that they were dictating to Britain by encouraging us In any case, I agree with others who have said to come up with our own options and have created that we are in such a mess that, rather than trying to space. ram through the Prime Minister’s unloved deal by just The contrast between a divided British Government, a few votes in a country that is deeply divided, we unable to get beyond the next vote in the House of should have a pause and a rethink. I cannot prove it, Commons and a group of very busy and distracted butIthinksomethingshiftedlastweek.The1millionpeople European leaders finding the time to roll up their march and the five and a half million people who shirtsleeves and come up with an astute political move signed the petition in just the law few days calling for a to change the dynamics in British politics was remarkable. revocationof Article50suggeststhatsomethingisshifting. That is what may be salutary from this. Let us hope Therefore, it is essential to test public opinion again. that it may be a source of inspiration. We must be The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right when he says under no illusion that this is our last chance to avoid that we will not resolve this in the next two weeks. an acrimonious breakdown in our relations with our These are fundamental issues about our future relationship nearest neighbours, who also happen to be the largest with the EU, which we have not got near to settling in economic bloc in the world and vital partners in our the last two years; but, it is right that we should embark security. on that journey and that, when there is a way forward, Many noble Lords have drawn attention to the it should be put to the people in another referendum. I Prime Minister’swords in the other House this afternoon: hope the way forward will involve revoking Article 50 “Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”. to give us time to think this through again. I am That is very encouraging. Is it really true that there is persuaded that the very best course for the UK is to now zero risk of a crash-out under any circumstances? stay in the EU, and that there is no other relationship What if the House of Commons spends the next two that will bring us anything like the same benefits. The weeks in more factional manoeuvring, votes down the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said that he does not think the Prime Minister’s Bill again and fails to find a majority country is in any mood to revoke Article 50. I think for anything else? Are we then not still confronted the petition gives a different impression of where the with the cliff edge on 12 April rather than 29 March? country may be moving. In any case, it is an entirely If so, there will certainly be no extra time available legitimate, democratic way of proceeding now that from the EU. There will be no managed no-deal: the everyone in Britain has discovered something of the EU will look after its interests and have scant sympathy true costs of separating ourselves from the EU. If the for the catastrophe that will overtake Britain—not just House of Commons prefers a different sort of Brexit Britain as a country but the hundreds of thousands of based on maintaining the customs union, or the single British citizens who have made their life choices to live market, or both, then that too is sufficiently different in the European Union and are still desperately anxious to require putting it back to the country in a referendum. about what the future holds. I do not believe the EU would be willing to give us I really hope that that will be avoided, for the an indefinite extension of Article 50, because that just reasons that most noble Lords have referred to in this continues the uncertainty for much longer. All other debate, and I think that there are signs that the alchemy EU countries have issues of their own. If you open a that the EU began to work at the European summit is French newspaper, “Crise” is the headline, but it is not having its effect. It is obviously very welcome that referring to Brexit; it is the affront to French sovereignty MPs will now be holding indicative votes in the other from the violence around the gilets jaunes demonstrations. place. Every other European country has its issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, it is pretty I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake: the EU extraordinary that within a few days of the point is more than an economic group: it is a community of where, up to now, we had been due to leave the values, and it is the group of countries with which we European Union, finally, MPs turn their attention for share our deepest and most important relationships. I the first time to trying to work out where there may be favour revoking Article 50. a majority beyond the Prime Minister’s deal. These are votes that should have happened before Article 50 was 8.12 pm ever triggered. I hope that they will come up with a Lord Naseby (Con): My Lords, it is a pleasure to new way forward that will meet what is a very modest listen to the noble Lord who just spoke, not least test set for us by the European Union, because he gave us an insight into Europe, which I do “to indicate a way forward … for consideration by the European not possess. For nearly 25 years of my life I sat in a Council”. marginal seat, and managed to win it for most of I think it means by that not just a process but, as the those 25 years. When you sit in a marginal seat, you noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, some sense of direction have to listen to the public and to the floating vote, not as to where we want to go, where we might be coming just the hard core of your constituents. 1673 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1674

I want particularly to thank the two Front-Benchers: looked up what Clement Attlee said at a difficult time, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—she has disappeared, to create independence for India. A good number of but I gather she will be back in a matter of minutes—and MPs said that it could not be done then, because it was the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is temporarily all too difficult and would cause absolute chaos; they absent. It is not just they who have borne the burden; said they would not support him. And he said, in the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition winding up his long speech: have, too. They were in from day one after the “The British Commonwealth of Nations survives today, and extraordinary referendum result—seats in the north has survived through the strain of two great wars, precisely and the south of England voted to leave the EU—so because it is not static, but is constantly developing, and because they have had an important role in communicating it has throughout the years steadily changed … My hope is that what your Lordships’ House feels to their Members of we may forget past differences and remember only how often and in how many fields of human endeavour Britons … have worked Parliament in the other place. They have been given together in harmony.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/1947; quite a burden, and I thank them for bearing it. col. 2462.] After the referendum, we had the general election. It was a great speech. Churchill was ill at the time, so In that election, both parties’ manifestos were quite Macmillan had to respond. He agreed with what Clement clear: the referendum result should be implemented. had said. The issue before us this evening is the Prime Minister’s There is a lesson here for all of us. We are not really deal, not what is in the political declaration—we know leaving Europe and our millions of friends there—my there is some flexibility there—so any talk about a second name is Wolfgang, and I feel I am part of the Canada deal or a Norway deal is pretty irrelevant this EU. We are Europeans in that sense and will remain evening. It does not matter that I voted to remain. That so, but we are also an energetic and creative nation, is totally irrelevant. It is irrelevant to every Conservative particularly in trade, commerce and industry. We want Member of Parliament, every Labour Member of some freedom to develop that. Parliament, and all the other Members of Parliament in the other place. It is no good people who were I ask every Conservative Member now to support elected to represent the people then deciding to abstain. the May agreement—perhaps some will have to bite Not a single Member of Parliament will get much their tongue. I suggest to those on the Front Bench thanks from their constituents for abstaining—they opposite that every Labour MP should think hard are sent there to make a decision one way or another. about their constituencies and the people they represent. It is no good a couple of Members of Parliament, in They should bite their tongues as well. Wemust remember particular, Mr Letwin and Ms Cooper, trying to take that, during Harold Wilson’s referendum—while I sat the high ground from the Government of the day—what in that marginal seat with a majority of 179—I stood arrogance. I do not think that is acceptable. shoulder to shoulder with my next door neighbour, a Labour Member of Parliament, because we both believed I remind myself that all the MPs in the two big in the future of our country. We put that ahead of parties signed up to the referendum and their manifestos. anything else. Maybe the EU is very difficult to work with. My noble friend who spoke earlier is right to point out that we I return to those on both Front Benches—and I am have never really been totally committed to it, other delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, now than during the period of just two Prime Ministers. in her place. I suggest they need to liaise and work Maybe Mrs May’s agreement on offer is not perfect—I more closely together than it appears has been happening do not think any of us believes it is perfect—but it is on the surface. After tonight’s debate, I hope that all that is on offer today. It is there, it is available those on both Front Benches will communicate to and—this is the key point—it creates Brexit. We go those in the other place and their followers that, back to that referendum and what the people of this although it is not a perfect withdrawal agreement, it country wanted. opens the crucial gate of Brexit. If we achieve that and allow it to happen, confidence, that very tender plant, I spent this morning in Northampton, where it will return to our people, our commerce and our happened to be press day for photographs of the industry. cricket first 11. They will succeed only if they work as a team. For me, the most important part of this morning’s visit, apart from encouraging the troops, was to listen 8.21 pm to our sponsors, large and small. I will now tell your Lordships what three of them said to me, while almost Lord Bilimoria (CB): My Lords, in February 2003, pinning me against the wall: “Michael, speak up for us, the march in London was the biggest in history, with please. We need a decision—a deal or no deal. No 2 million people trying to stop the Iraq war. The more indecision. No more putting it off for another Government did not listen and Prime Minister Tony day”. I interpret that as no more kicking the can down Blair did not listen; what a disastrous decision that the road, and no extension of Article 50. “But”, they was. On Saturday 23 March, I was proud to be among said, and to me this is the key point, “Unless we get a the 1 million people who marched—more than the decision, there will be no further investment”. I come 700,000 who marched a few months ago. It was peaceful, from industry and commerce, and I know that this is with families and people of all ages taking part, from absolutely crucial to the future of our country. all around the country. I finish on a quote, deliberately from a Labour The placards were terrific: “Even Arsenal are still in Prime Minister. A number of my colleagues in the Europe”; “Less Farage, more fromage”; and, “I’m House will know I have a deep interest and involvement incandescent with rage—but I’m British, so I’m just with the Indian subcontinent. Over the weekend, I holding up a sign”. In Parliament Square, we had 1675 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1676

[LORD BILIMORIA] utopian world where he says you should drop the deal, speeches about the people’s vote. Tom Watson, Labour go back to Brussels and set out the terms—just like deputy leader, said we should, “Let the people vote”; that. What have the Government been trying to do for and Anna Soubry said, two years? He said: “put your country first, get into the lobbies and vote for a people’s “Extend the implementation period … if necessary; use it to vote”. negotiate a free trade deal; pay the fee; but come out of the EU Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, said: now—without the backstop. It is time for the PM to channel the spirit of Moses in Exodus, and say to Pharoah in Brussels—let “It’s time to give us, the British people, a final say on Brexit”. my people go”. Michael Heseltine lambasted Mrs May for blaming What a load of nonsense. Parliament for what has happened with Brexit. He At the crux of all this is not just a constitutional invoked Winston Churchill, saying: crisis. We are not just watching a train crash in slow “I was appalled by Theresa May’s speech on Wednesday motion. It is not just business, with the CBI and the evening. It will rank among the biggest affronts on parliamentary democracy in our history”. TUC coming together, terrified of a no-deal Brexit. It is not just the collapse of collective Cabinet responsibility. Calypso Latham, a 19 year-old science student, said: Just yesterday Minister Mark Field said that he would “I was too young to vote in the last referendum. It’s going to vote to revoke Article 50 and Chancellor Philip Hammond affect my career with research grants so I definitely wanted to said that a second Brexit referendum deserved to be come and protest”. considered. That is not just a Cabinet divided or a Aurore Mead, aged 14, said: Conservative Party divided but the Labour Party is “I really wanted to come because it’s a big part of my future divided and Parliament is divided. Families are divided. and my life”. The UK is divided. In another part of the country, on Saturday morning, Yet what is really at stake is the democracy of this Nigel Farage rejoined the march to leave near Nottingham, country. We are told repeatedly that 17.4 million people and there were 200 people present. voted to leave. But they voted to leave by a very narrow Side by side in all this, we have had two petitions. 52:48 victory. People forget that in the first nationwide Noble Lords have spoken about one of them: to referendum in 1975 on whether to stay in the European revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU. At the last Community, the result was—wait for it—17.4 million count, it had more than 5.5 million signatures and people voted to remain. The difference was that that counting; 96% of the signatories are from the UK. But 17.4 million was not a narrow victory but a two-thirds there is also another petition: leave the EU without a majority—not 52:48. At the time of the referendum deal in March 2019. Guess how many have signed exactly three years ago, 75% of the people in the other that? Just 550,000 people. Where is 5.5 million and place and over 75% of this House thought that the where is 550,000? Will the Government listen? No. best thing for the UK was to remain in the European The Prime Minister’s Statement today stated, Union, yet now we are being held to ransom by this democratic vote in the referendum three years ago. “it is with great regret that I have had to conclude that as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring At that time, the EU was not an issue. It was not back the deal for a third meaningful vote”. something that people knew much about. I knew a Then she said: fraction of what I know now. At the top of people’s minds were health, taxes, education and crime, and now, “If we cannot, the Government made a commitment that we would work across the House to find a majority on a way three years later, we know how complicated leaving is. forward”. We know the benefits of being in the largest trading That all sounds good. Then she said that, bloc in the world. We know how difficult it is to replicate the EU’s 50-plus free trade agreements. We “the Member for West Dorset seeks to provide for this process by have only six ready to roll over. We know that it has taking control of the Order Paper … an unwelcome precedent to set, which would overturn the balance between our democratic taken two years to negotiate three things—£39 billion, institutions”. in the context of a £2 trillion economy? I would pay the £8 billion a year that we pay to the EU just for the So the Government will oppose that amendment this peace that it has helped bring to Europe. evening. On the one hand they are saying they will work with the House and on the other saying they will What about people’s rights, our rights and EU oppose it. Then she said: citizens’ rights over here? We cannot use people as “So I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome bargaining chips. That is a given. Then there is the of any votes held by this House”. backstop protecting the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland border. That was hardly mentioned Then she stated that: during the referendum. Now we are told, “These three “The default outcome continues to be to leave with no deal. things have been agreed, it has taken two years, now But this House has previously expressed its opposition to that capitulate and agree to go forward out of the European path, and may very well do so again this week”. Union and into a transition period”. But then we will She finally said that: have left the European Union. The backstop will “The alternative is to pursue a different form of Brexit or a continue. We will still be subject to ECJ rules and we second referendum”. are going into a blindfold Brexit. We still have to I cannot go on without quoting Boris Johnson in negotiate trade, security, a frictionless border, nuclear his article today. He said that Mrs May and the and so forth, and we know now that in every analysis Government had “chickened out” of delivering Brexit. it is far better for businesses, the economy and citizens, I do not know which world he lives in. He lives in a on balance—the EU is not perfect—to remain. Why in 1677 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1678 the name of democracy are we all being forced to 8.31 pm honour the will of the people—the instruction of the people three years ago? It is out of date. It is irrelevant. Lord Bowness (Con): My Lords, I may be alone but I always feel that there is an air of unreality about this The electorate have changed. There are now 2.4 million present situation—especially given that we in this House more youths of voting age who were not old enough to are spectators, watching a potential disaster unfold vote three years ago, and 80% want to remain, including before our eyes. Apart from a few Brexiteer zealots two of my children, one who turned 18 in October who still believe their own propaganda, we all know 2016 and another who turned 18 last week on 21 March. that we are participating in a process that will lead to There are 2 million more people of voting age now the United Kingdom being politically and economically who can vote. Sadly, on the other side, with a death rate worse off, as well as in terms of world influence. Sadly, of 600,000, there are probably more than 1 million people there have been few references to the need for European who voted to leave who are no longer with us.That means unity and the part that we could and should play in 3 million more. The victory was 17.4 million versus that. It is even more extraordinary that a Government 16.1 million and the youth did not turn out three years whose primary task must be to safeguard the nation in ago. They regret it and now they will turn out in force. the widest possible sense are acting as they are. Where, then, is the gumption of our MPs? Where has However, we are in extraordinary times, and we our representative democracy gone? Where are the MPs need extraordinary measures. I hope that, somehow, we who are not meant to be delegates? They are not meant will find the political leadership that will honestly tobelemmings.Theyaremeanttovotewiththeirconscience, address the nation and tell it the problems that we to do the right thing for what, in their opinion, is in the face. Yes, you voted to leave the European Union. Yes, best interests of Britain and their constituency—not we have done our best to negotiate that in a way that for what is in the best interests of their party, which, leaves you as well off—or, as the leavers would have sadly, is what the Conservative Party is doing. you believe, better off—as you were as members of the The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke about dynamic European Union. But that has not proved possible. democracy. When people change their minds, when There are two reasons for this. First and foremost, there the facts change, and when people are far more informed, is not a better deal than membership of the European Parliament should do the right thing. The Prime Minister Union. Secondly, in an attempt to meet your wishes, keeps ruling out another Brexit referendum, saying we trapped ourselves in a set of red lines, which that it would deepen divisions and undermine support rendered our aspirations, which are now set out in the for democracy. Brexit supporters say that a second political declaration, impossible to achieve, as those referendum would trigger a major constitutional crisis. aspirations are largely incompatible with the red lines. What have we got, if not a divided country and a An honest assessment would tell the people that constitutional crisis, right now? Stephen Barclay, the revocation of Article 50 or,at the very least, a long delay, Brexit Secretary, said that if we have indicative votes, is necessary while we belatedly decide what we want which are now being voted on, that could bring about fromourrelationshipwithourclosestandmostimportant a constitutional collision and increase the risk of a partners. Sadly, I feel that I shall wish on, because there general election. is no evidence of any political leadership prepared to The polls show that the people have changed their take such steps. The May deal does at least give us a minds: there is an 8%-10% lead for remain. The Prime transition period but, if the Government throw away Minister can go back to Parliament and say, “Please that time in the same way as they have thrown away the change your mind”—she wants to go back a third time time since the referendum, we will be in no better state and say, “Change your mind”—and yet the people do to decide what we want in December 2020 than we are not get even one chance to change their mind. That is in March 2019. Such incompetence cannot go on. wrong. If we impose any of this Brexit on people and Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box in this House the people have not had a say, if it is a bad Brexit, for and told us that we cannot be kept informed of progress generations from now people will not thank this inthenegotiationsforfearof prejudicingthosenegotiations. Parliament. When Parliament and the Government However, this time and for the future, we must decide fail, the only sensible thing seems to be to go to the what we want before we go into those negotiations. people. We are damaging our constitution. We are This dysfunctional Cabinet and Government have no damaging our relationship with our biggest trading idea of where we are seeking to end up. Whether it is partner, which makes up two-thirds of our trade. We the May deal, another deal or no deal, we shall still are damaging our economy. Parliament must now vote have to have a close relationship with the European for a long extension to Article 50, to which Europe Union. What that is has to be established as a matter of will agree. Then we must put it back to the people, and urgency, and it will take leadership and not constant they must decide whether they want to leave or to capitulation to the ultra-Brexiteer party within the remain. That is, today’s people; not yesterday’s people, Conservative Party. Until this is resolved, we are only not an out-of-date electorate. delaying the ultimate disaster to a later date. It cannot To conclude, it saddens me that the whole world is go on, and I hope that the Minister will be able to looking at this great country with disbelief, saying, confirm that to the House at the conclusion of this debate. “What are you doing? Why are you doing this to On a previous occasion I asked the Minister a yourselves? You don’t have to do this!”. Let us put the question which he did not answer. If this deal does not “great” back in Great Britain and the “united” back in go through, what is plan B? I hope that this time it is the United Kingdom, by giving the great British public plain enough to him that the House and the people the final say. need to know. 1679 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1680

8.36 pm followed by revocation. Those are the only credible solutions. If we get the long extension that may be Lord Adonis (Lab): My Lords, I agree with every necessary, we could spend many months getting to word that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has just that conclusion, but it has been clear for a year that said, and my speech continues from where he left off. the basic Brexit proposition is imploding. We are a It seems to me that plan B is to revoke Article 50 and democracy, so there has to be a democratic role beyond to put this nightmare behind us, because there is no simply a parliamentary vote in this process. That is other credible way to resolve this crisis on terms that where I believe we will get to. are acceptable to the country. The problem with the Prime Minister’s deal—the The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that his mentor reason that it has gone down twice and will go down a was Lord Carrington, whom I also held in very high third time—is that it does not remotely deliver the esteem. However, my mentor, and indeed friend, was objective that was set out at the beginning: a deep and Roy Jenkins, who always said that in politics the key to meaningful partnership with the European Union while success was constantly to argue to solutions, not to leaving it. That was the constant mantra and objective conclusions—to get on with it. We now seriously need that we heard from the Government Front Bench day to get on with it because after two and a half years of after day. It does not remotely do this. It is not even a this fiasco the country is not prepared to wait much partnership that lasts beyond 21 months; there is no longer. However, whatever we do must be towards a deal beyond then. solution, and that solution must actually work rather than being a form of words or a ruse that simply kicks When the Prime Minister made the speech in Lancaster the can down the road. House that set the whole process off, she said: … Although the Prime Minister has exhibited a “We will provide certainty it is in no one’s interest for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability”. combination of incompetence and intransigence unmatched in recent times—one can debate whether it These were the key words on which this whole process goes back to Anthony Eden, Lord North or Charles I, was launched and she invoked Article 50: but among our rulers it is almost unmatched—she “Instead I want us to have reached an agreement about our makes a good point when she says that the only way of future partnership by the time the two-year Article 50 process has stopping no deal, which people do not want and the concluded”. House of Commons has now voted against twice with That was the basis on which this whole process started, big majorities, is to have either a deal or no Brexit. whereas where we are now is with a withdrawal agreement That is correct. She keeps stating it because she thinks that simply gets us legally out of the European Union— that if she forces the House of Commons to vote again ostensibly this Friday, but that will be delayed—with and again, ultimately it will vote for her deal. However, no long-term agreement whatever. Indeed, the reason there is no sign of that at all, and indeed she is the that we need the backstop and all these much-touted standing refutation of it, because today, in the extremity alternative arrangements is precisely that we do not of our situation, she could not even come to the House have agreement about a future partnership by the time of Commons to propose a third meaningful vote. I say the two-year Article 50 process has concluded. “meaningful”, but the Prime Minister treats the votes That is why, in an unprecedented statement, the as meaningless and hopes that ultimately she will win TUC and the CBI joined forces last week and said: one and it will become meaningful. “Our country is facing a national emergency. Decisions of recent Anyone who was in the Gallery of the House of days have caused the risk of no deal to soar … we ask you”— Commons, as I was earlier, knows that there is no I remind noble Lords that it is the TUC and the chance whatever of the House of Commons agreeing CBI saying this to us, her deal at a third vote. You just needed to listen to the “to take three steps to protect the jobs, rights and livelihoods of parliamentary leader of the DUP and a whole group … of representatives of the ERG—which I have come to ordinary working people. First, avoiding no deal is paramount Second, securing an extension has become essential … Third, ‘the dub the “Economic Ruin Group”—to know that there current deal or no deal’ must not be the only choice”. is no prospect of her deal going through on a third vote, and we are right up against the wire. The House This is the situation we face now. of Commons has, by decisive majorities, twice voted The reason that it will not be possible to get a against no deal. Therefore, either there has to be some majority in the House of Commons for this deal or new deal or there has to be no Brexit. Those are the anything remotely close to it, is that it does not even only options and, if we are to argue to a solution, begin to safeguard the long-term economic or security those are the only potential solutions. future of the country. The political declaration is one We have heard the mantra from many noble Lords load of waffle. It is what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, on the other side of the House today that it is described when he resigned as a “gangplank into thin unconscionable that we should have no Brexit, but I air”. It is still a gangplank into thin air. We are being do not think it is unconscionable at all. Parliament is asked to leave all the benefits of the European Union here to exert its wisdom. As we are a democracy, it for a mess of pottage. Walter Bagehot once said: would of course then need to submit its judgment to “The cure for admiring the House of Lords is to go and look the judgment of the people. That would happen either at it”. in a general election or—more likely in the circumstances That was deeply unfair; it is a wonderful assembly, and in which we find ourselves—a referendum. It looks to the closer you look at it the more impressive it becomes. me, in arguing to solutions, that we will end up with But the cure for admiring the political declaration and revocation followed by referendum, or a referendum the withdrawal agreement is indeed to read them. 1681 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1682

The political declaration is one of the most threadbare at all of what is in this box marked “Norway” and documents ever presented to Parliament on a major there is profound misunderstanding about what it policy issue. On these huge issues affecting the whole contains. In particular, it does not contain a customs future of the country, it says, at paragraph 22 that, union, so it will not be a solution to the problems of “the Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create Northern Ireland. The things it does contain are things a free trade area”— that there will not ultimately be a majority for in the I repeat, “envisage”, with no provisions made whatever. House of Commons, if there is a desire for Brexit at Paragraph 25 says: all. It contains no change whatever in freedom of movement and those rules. You just need to read the “In this context, the United Kingdom will consider aligning”, speeches and comments made by the Norwegian Prime with the European Union, “in relevant areas”. “Consider” Minister and those who actually know what goes on in and “relevant” are totally undefined and there are no Norway to see why it will not be viable. follow-up provisions. Paragraph 55 says that, My strong plea to Members of the House of “the Parties will explore the possibility to facilitate the crossing of Commons, who will take these key decisions in coming their respective borders for legitimate travel”. weeks, is to not exchange one unicorn for another. As That is an astonishing statement. We are just about to the Norwegian Prime Minister put it: leave the European Union on the basis of exploring “We do agree with the EU that you cannot be cherry-picking whether we will agree with the European Union the … Norway is outside [the EU], but we are inside the single market facilitation of the crossing of our borders for legitimate ... We do accept that decisions on the four freedoms are done in travel. If we had not become inured to this Brexit Brussels”. catastrophe, anyone reading these documents would The Norwegian MP Heidi Nordby Lunde warned us think we had taken leave of our senses. that, I like paragraph 107 best of all. It says: “the Norwegian option is not an option … The three countries in Efta have to agree on all the regulations coming from the EU, so if “The Parties should consider appropriate arrangements for one country vetoes something we all have to veto, which means cooperation on space”. that if the UK enters the Efta platform and starts to veto Where that will lead the negotiations over the few regulations that we want, this will affect not just the UK but also weeks before the Prime Minister brings back the next us as well”. iteration of her political declaration, I do not know. She went on to warn: Who honestly believes that that will lead to a solution? “If, as I understand, UK politicians do not want to be ruled by There will now almost inevitably be a long extension regulations coming from other countries, why would they accept a country with 38,000 citizens like Liechtenstein being able to veto of the Article 50 process. It is vital that we do not regulations that the UK wants. That would be the reality”. exchange the pursuit of one unicorn for the pursuit of another. The idea which is in danger of gaining ground As soon as you get into the Norwegian option, you is that the reason why this deal did not work was that realise that it will crumble in your hands. The right thing the Prime Minister was a singularly inept negotiator is not to proceed in pursuit of unicorns, but instead and her red lines were singularly intransigent. Well, call a halt to the whole grisly process that we have been she was an inept negotiator and her red lines were going through, and to do it democratically by revoking intransigent but, in my view, there is no other deal that and then holding a referendum. will maintain a deep and special partnership with the When the Prime Minister asked the House of European Union that could conceivably be negotiated. Commons to invoke Article 50, she said: The quest for it will simply set us off on another two “At moments such as these—great turning points in our or two-and-a-half-year search for the Holy Grail that national story—the choices that we make define the character of will almost certainly end in further catastrophe, and, our nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/3/17; col. 251.] of course, completely preoccupy Parliament, the The choices we make on behalf of the people in the Government, the Civil Service and our national life coming weeks will define the character of our nation. I while it goes on, while we pay virtually no attention to want it to be defined by putting the people and the any other public policy issues of great concern to the national interest first, not pursuing unicorns, and country. respecting the right of the British people to have good The loss of trust and faith in politics if we engage in government that looks after their long-term interests. that process will be profound. It might simply lead to Brexit fizzling out without any further democratic 8.50 pm process, because of ultimate exhaustion. However, The Earl of Sandwich (CB): My Lords, the noble rather than doing that, it would be much better to use Lord, Lord Adonis, always enlivens our debates. I am the opportunity of the extension to resolve this issue challenged, and I hope I am not chasing unicorns at by revoking and having a referendum, or having a this moment. I will proceed as I was, but he has really referendum and then revoking, rather than searching made me think again. for the Holy Grail. We are finally close to the brink, and this is a good I do not want to detain the House longer, so I will moment to pause. The cliff edge is in sight, and I am simply stress that what is now loosely referred to as reminded of the old Hoffnung bricklayer’s story, in “Norway”, and which may be part of the indicative which our hero meets the barrel of bricks going up votes in the House of Commons, is something that and down, and he ultimately receives all the bricks on will disintegrate in the hands of those who seek to his head when he hits the bottom. That is the Prime negotiate it, as soon as they try to unpack it and turn it Minister. The bricks of Brexit are still falling, and the into a proposition. There is no common understanding damage is still being done. This is no comedy, but it is 1683 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1684

[THE EARL OF SANDWICH] chance first. I would still prefer that the Government a joke in a funny way, and a joke it may be for all the persuade their more eccentric Brexiteers to join them 27 EU states, which seem to be at the limit of endurance in the lobby and that a deal of some kind go through, and good humour. They have shown a remarkable because no deal has already been rejected. It is the ability to respond, as my noble friends Lord Kerslake only amendment that has had such a large majority. and Lord Ricketts have said, to an unprecedented The House of Commons is losing its old discipline, display of political unwisdom. They need us, we need in spite of the Speaker’s valiant efforts. This is, I believe, them, and I share their exasperation. a genuine reflection of the close voting on Brexit. It What about this phrase, “Mother of Parliaments”? has never faced divisions on this scale in our lifetime Do we dare use it any more? I have never rated it and it has not experienced such a national confrontation. highly on overseas visits. Europe has never taken This is not unique: other European Parliaments have much notice of it, and if you go to Commonwealth gone into battle, with fisticuffs and even tear gas. We Parliaments you will find a semi-circular Chamber. do not see that happening here quite yet. Long before This is one lesson that has been learned. Do not build that—even this afternoon—MPs had an opportunity confrontational Chambers which merely reinforce the to restore order. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was so two-party system. As we have seen, they can lead the good on this: they need to find a proper consensus, a Chamber into stultification or worse. coalition of the willing who are respected individuals I am always interested in how others see us. Back in from all parties who can put forward reasonable, 1972 I persuaded Macmillan Journals to publish a so-called indicative amendments that can command a review of the European press so that, as we entered majority. To achieve that—it is no mean task, as we Europe, we would understand more of what the have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—there Europeans were saying. However, it was difficult. If it has to be a compromise that satisfies moderate leavers was foggy in the Channel, in those pre-digital days the and remainers alike. It will have to be a customs union European press would sometimes never arrive at all. or Norway-plus, as described by my noble friend Last Thursday, while the EU was cogitating on the Lord Butler, or at any rate a close association with the Prime Minister’s latest version of her deal, I quickly EU that also provides the opportunity for free trade scanned the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Le Monde agreements. We simply cannot throw away all the for Brexit. The front-page headline said, “Franz Kafka” advantages offered by EU membership over 40 years. in large letters. I thought, “What an appropriate image Details have already been worked out in the political for Brexit”—until I realised it was about the Leipzig declaration, for which we are waiting. Book Fair. Eventually I found news stories and a This must be a serious exercise. The noble Lord, disgruntled Bavarian who complained of English Lord Soley, spoke about this. He even mentioned a arrogance in assuming they were still in charge of a Government of national unity. Why not? It cannot be united kingdom. designed as a scheme to support the Prime Minister; it has to be a genuine effort by senior parliamentarians In Le Monde I found nothing until I got to a to lead where the Prime Minister cannot, and, of course, full-page spread on China’s overtures to Italy and ultimately to persuade the Government that this is the other EU members. The author seemed genuinely only way through the mess of successive meaningful votes. sorry that Brexit was inevitably going to encourage I also believe in the power of prayer. The noble China and everyone else to develop stronger diplomatic Lord, Lord Cormack, and I happened to be in Lincoln and trade relations with the EU. Cathedral yesterday morning; I think that he believes This leads on to my main point, which is that the in it too. I hope that the right reverend Prelate continues powerful centrifugal force of Brexit damages the economic to support the power of prayer. and political health of the separate nations. Brexiteers Perhaps I am being optimistic, because policy formed complain of a growing European unity that I do not through indicative voting is not yet policy, but this is a see. I see the loss of so many vital ties in security, in time when the whole country will want to will Parliament health care, in almost every sector of life—ties that are forward, and forward it must go. The Prime Minister dismissed so often as mere regulations. I see a threat to should support this exploratory process because it our own United Kingdom. could yield new elements to support a deal—not her Europe is not uniting. Well before the referendum, deal, but one that comes from a majority in Parliament. there were countries expressing discordant voices, not least on the eurozone and on border controls. We were 8.58 pm difficult customers. We were given certain privileges LordCormack(Con):MyLords,Iwasindeeddelighted and opt-outs—observer status in Schengen and so to see the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and his wife in on—but we were not the only ones. Immigration was Lincoln Cathedral yesterday.Weattended matins together always going to be different in different countries in one of the most glorious of all European buildings. because its effects were different, but at least we could WheneverwetalkaboutEurope,Ialwaysthinkthatthough all sit down and argue the case. Now we cannot. my identity might be English and my nationality British, I am proud to own an EU passport and to feel that my culture and civilisation are European. We owe so I am an EU citizen, at least for a few more days. I am much to the intermingling of those who practised the therefore emotionally encouraged by any further slippage arts and the crafts through the ages on our wonderful in the timetable that postpones the inevitable and continent. possibly ends up with another referendum. Having I do not propose to expand on that, but there is just said that, I would not vote for a referendum or an one thing that I have been asked to say by my noble Article 50 extension now. We must give Parliament a friend the Duke of Wellington, who unfortunately has 1685 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1686 had to withdraw from the debate. He wanted to convey for them to have a dialogue and consider the various his apologies, which I gladly do, and also to say that, options that, by then, might have been or could become imperfect as it might be, he is foursquare behind the the subjects of indicative votes.Wehave to find something deal on offer. around which we can coalesce or, in spite of the Prime Minister’sprotestations—which I was glad to hear—there I have been a member of the Conservative Party for will be a real danger that we crash out. 63 years. I joined in a momentous year: 1956. Within a year I held office as a young Conservative chairman The only person who has talked with insouciance and have had some kind of office or position in about that in this debate has been my noble friend the party ever since. Politically, I have never felt more Lord Lilley, but most of us, looking at the TUC and depressed. I have never felt more concerned, and, like the CBI in that remarkable partnership last week, a right honourable friend of mine in another place, I listening to industrialists, farmers and others in the have at times over the last three years felt ashamed. I country, know there is enormous concern about the am deeply concerned that a group of Conservatives potential damage that could be inflicted in the short have almost held the country to ransom. I refer to the term. There is also a degree of national humiliation in ERG. They are coming close not just to splitting the this country. People have looked to this country, over party—which of course is less important than the the years, as the embodiment of good sense, effective country—but to wreaking real havoc in our nation. I diplomacy and real leadership, and they say, “Where hope that they will draw back now and realise that if are those now?”. Wehad a group of French schoolchildren they want any sort of Brexit, the one sort currently on and their teachers in Lincoln Cathedral last Thursday, offer and on the table is the one that the Prime and I fell to talking to some of them. They were Minister has put there. desperately sad that we appear to be moving out, but desperately anxious to maintain the friendships that The Prime Minister is a good Christian woman, have, over the last century or more, united our countries whom I admire very much. However, I wish that she since the great entente cordiale of 1904. had been a little more flexible and a little less obdurate, It is crucial that we do everything possible to ensure and that when she talked to the nation last week, she that, by 12 April, we have done enough to convince had done so not from a lectern but at a table—rather our European friends and colleagues that we should as the Queen does when she gives her Christmas have more time to arrive at a mutually agreed solution. message—and talked to the people. That is what we Some of your Lordships have talked in this debate need. I also thought it a pity that, while I understand about a very long extension. I understand the worries why she wanted to talk to certain Members whose about the European parliamentary elections and do transfer of allegiance could be of enormous help to not think that, if we were making real progress in our her,the news yesterday and the newspapers this morning discussions, it would be impossible to ask for an were dominated by a certain group of people going to extension of the sort the Prime Minister went to Chequers—as if they mattered more than any others. Brussels to ask for last week—until the end of June. It That was a great pity. would be possible, I hope, to iron out the heads of In spite of all that, I hope she gets her deal, but I agreement that would enable us to proceed, without was in the Gallery of the other place when the Prime having to go through all the trouble of participating in Minister made her Statement today, and it does look European elections. I understand why some people as though she may not put it to the Commons before, think that that would be breaking faith and would or even on, 29 March. As I understand it, we would cause more turmoil and upset. Our people are too then have a period of a fortnight, until 12 April. The bitterly divided, at the moment, to do anything that sands really are running out. It is the last chance will divide them more. saloon. I very much hope that the time will be used I was at a function in Lincoln on Friday night and profitably. In a remarkable speech earlier today, my talked to a lot of people, many of whom said, “We are noble friend Lord Bridges made some extremely telling confused. We are frustrated. We are getting angry. points, but in two weeks we have to be able to convince You’ve got to deal with this in Parliament and you’ve our friends and neighbours—I use those words deliberately got to deal with it soon”. There is not much time left and repeatedly—in the European Union that Parliament but, if the deal goes down or is not brought forward to is working towards a solution. If her deal has not been be voted on, the responsibility bears upon us all in accepted, we will have to show that there is a basis for both Houses, but particularly those in the other place, agreement. I sincerely hope that we will. to find a way forward that will not cause undue delay. I believe that your Lordships’ House has so much wisdom I have talked in your Lordships’ House before about within it that the putting-together of those two committees the creation of a committee of both Houses. There could play a significant part in working towards the would not be time to create one in the remaining conclusion that surely we all want. fortnight, but there would be an opportunity, which I commend to my noble friend Lord Callanan. He will be winding up this debate and has exercised enormous 9.08 pm patience and good humour over the last two years or Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB): My Lords, it is a more. I put it to him that there would be some merit in great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, putting together the Exiting the European Union and before him the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I Committee, chaired by Mr Hilary Benn, in another found myself agreeing with much—not everything, place, and your Lordships’European Union Committee. but much—of what they said. I also hope that their There is an enormous amount of cross-party experience prayers prove to be efficacious, because they might be and ability in those two bodies. It could do no harm our best bet now. 1687 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1688

[LORD TREVETHIN AND OAKSEY] that outcome throughout; if I had had a bet with him I One of the hazards of speaking late in what the would have lost. It did not wholly come as a surprise noble Lord, Lord Newby, I think, told us was the to me but, nevertheless, there was a very powerful 13th debate on this topic is that all one’s good points, point against the Court of Justice’s conclusion, which, if any, have been made by other speakers, and most of in short, was that Article 50 imposes a stringent two-year the less good, and even the bad, points that I was time limit—as we all know by now, being in its vice at thinking of making have also been made. So I shall the moment. It does so in the interests of the member take up one or two of the issues raised, and draw out states that continue to be part of the Union, and one some out of the threads. can well understand why that is so. If a departing state In his powerful speech, with which I disagreed can unilaterally revoke a notification, it is not easy to fundamentally, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who see what would stop it tactically revoking a notification may be moving a Motion later on revocation, said that towards the end of the two-year period—because the it should be done “democratically” and then we should talks had not gone so well and it wanted to buy some revoke and then call a referendum. I have great respect more time—and then re-notifying a week, a month or for the energy and resolve of the noble Lord, and the a few months later, thereby converting the two-year high degree of candour with which he has expressed limit to a four-year limit, and conceivably doing the his objectives over the past two or three years. But same thing at the end of the four-year period. That when he puts to the House the prospect of revoking would make a nonsense of Article 50 and the Court of first and calling a referendum later, he has not, with Justice had to deal with that. great respect, paid sufficient attention to the meaning The text of the judgment and the prior opinion of and effect of revocation of the Article 50 notification the Advocate-General, read together, do not convey in the light of the Court of Justice’s decision in an entirely clear picture of the answer to that point, Wightman—and, to some extent, the Supreme Court but, read sensibly, it is reasonably clear what the court decision in Miller. is saying. I shall not go into the text, but it is saying, First, revoke and then have a referendum is never “No, a tactical revocation of an Article 50 notification going to happen, so I will not take up too much of is inappropriate and unlawful. We the CJEU will not your Lordships’ time with that possibility. It will not permit that”. It has to be done in accordance with the happen because, almost certainly, primary legislation constitutional requirements of the departing state, would be required before the existing Article 50 notification pursuant to a democratic process and, according to could be revoked. It is far too late to go into the legal the Advocate-General, in good faith. What one probably analysis; anyone who is interested will find an excellent gets from that is that a revocation followed by a later paper by Professor Young and Professor Phillipson, notification would be treated by the Court of Justice which sets out the reasoning in a very erudite way, on as ineffective so far as the later notification was concerned. the Constitutional Law Association website. I do not In short, a revocation will be final and determinative, think, from conversations I have had outside the Chamber, on the state of EU law at the moment. Accordingly, that any of the very distinguished noble and learned “revoke first, referendum second”would not be conducive Lords who sit around me would disagree with my to the maintenance of trust in democracy in this proposition. country, because the post-revocation referendum would So primary legislation would be required, and, not be advisory or mandatory; it would be a rubber-stamp realistically, there seems no prospect whatever that the referendum, and the people would not like that at all. I House of Commons would think it expedient to try to mention those points because I have been looking at enact primary legislation that said, in 2019—after the the European case law. referendum Act, the notification Act of 2017 and the I shall close my observations in this way. Like, I withdrawal Act of 2018—“Do you know what? We should think, other Members of the House, I spent did not really mean it at all—we are taking it all back: quite a lot of the weekend watching elected politicians we are revoking, without consulting the people”. The on television ducking, diving, weaving and dissembling House of Commons will not do that, because it is the to answer good questions put to them by Mr Marr elected House, and it has one eye—possibly both and others. It was a very depressing sight. We the eyes—on the response of the electors to that procedure. country, and within the country Parliament, are in big I agree entirely with the very powerful points made by trouble now; I think that everyone who has spoken in the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who this debate recognises that. The crisis will get worse perhaps looks at these issues in a slightly different way fast unless elected politicians in particular start talking from me but who very convincingly explained why it straight about the options and how they are to be could not possibly be right to decide this issue in dealt with. Parliament before it was returned to the people—if it Let me not be partisan. The ultra-Brexiteers in the has to be returned to the people. Commons should stop engaging in covert manoeuvres So the revoke first, referendum next solution will in the hope that they will lead to an inadvertent not happen in practice. It would in any event—and it no-deal Brexit. I say respectfully that the Prime Minister may be important for other reasons to appreciate should stop saying, “To be completely clear” and then this—be completely inappropriate because of the legal saying something that is as clear as mud. That is not effect of the Court of Justice decision in the Wightman convincing. She should try to be a little clearer about case. As the House knows, the Court of Justice held, what she is seeking to do. The remainers—just to be in Wightman, that it is possible to unilaterally revoke even-handed about this—should stop using language an Article 50 notification. That came as no surprise at in a way that is reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth all to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who had predicted in 1984. 1689 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1690

I shall not go back into the terminology of the option instead of saying how and by what policy “people’s vote”—we have all enjoyed analysing that course they will prevent it happening. There are any concept; I want to talk about a different concept that number of ways they can do that, but you will never has been gaining currency during the past couple of hear the Prime Minister saying how she will prevent it weeks and was discussed on television yesterday. It is a happening, except by telling people to vote for her deal. so-called “confirmatory referendum”, referred to obliquely How is it best done? There is of course the option by various representatives of the Opposition. I listened the Prime Minister continually produces—approving carefully and I think that the proposal is that the the deal she concluded last November—and she seems Prime Minister’s deal, which is so widely derided, absolutely determined to pursue that to the exclusion would be voted through, but only on condition that it of all else, unpromising though the prospects of getting is subject to a “confirmatory referendum”. Such a an agreement from the other place may be. The legal referendum, it is suggested, would consist of a—rather clarifications which have now been formalised by the displeasing to some—binary choice: vote for the Prime European Council are welcome, but do not seem to Minister’s deal, which has been voted down twice by me—as a non-lawyer, at any rate—to alter the realities the House of Commons by enormous majorities and of the Irish backstop. They also do not alter the fact suffers from many defects which have been discussed that this is actually quite a poor deal which promises today and on other occasions, or vote for remain. That years of uncertainty, arduous negotiation and, let us is, to borrow from an observation made by one speaker face it, divisions within the Government’s camp as to on the other side of this Chamber today, a choice what they want to negotiate for our future relationship. between a dead parrot which has ceased to be—the The idea that the civil war now raging will suddenly be Prime Minister’s deal, which no one wants—and remain. calmed by leaving and then opening the negotiations That structuring of the referendal question simply will for the future relationship defies all belief. not do, because it disenfranchises a large number of voters in this country.Something else must be structured It would surely be better to look seriously at all if there is to be a referendum. I have not yet heard the alternatives now, having got rid of those disastrous red question satisfactorily defined, and we are running out lines on the customs union and the single market, and of time. to ask the EU for a longer extension than 30 June—not The people may not have known what they were indefinite, of course—in which we could hope to lay voting for, but they will know if they are being lied to. the foundations for what is to follow. Such an extension We and all elected representatives need to start talking would have the added benefit of providing enough straightforwardly to them. time and space to consult the electorate—which, as I said at the outset, I believe is the right thing to do. So I hope that that is where we will end up in the course of 9.20 pm the next two weeks. I hope that the Prime Minister will Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB): My Lords, the fact carry out the will of the other place if it is so expressed, that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, scratched this go back and ask for that reasonably lengthy extension, evening has slightly shot my fox since he is a very easy and make it clear that its purpose is to set out on a new person to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and course, not the old one. Oaksey, is not such an easy person to follow, because How should we deal with the complication of the he expressed a great deal of good sense. I agree with European Parliament elections in May? I have to say him about the sequencing of revoke and having a that I am a bit distressed that the EU 27 have made referendum—you cannot do it that way round. My our participation in those elections such a central view is that a referendum is desirable and necessary, element in their determination of the duration of any and I would also like to see it made mandatory so that Article 50 extension. There are a number of ways of we do not get into an argument about a neverendum. getting round this problem that could be used without The seemingly unending series of debates in this treaty change, using the inherent powers in Article 50 House on Brexit is often criticised by quite a few of to organise an orderly and stable exit. It is a pity that the speakers, including some this evening. It is said that has not been given more space. It has certainly that the options before us do not change much. I been lurking in the drawers of the Council, the believe this is a worthwhile debate, because the context Commission and the Parliament, but they have opted in which those options are being examined and the for a more forceful approach. urgency of reaching general conclusions both change. Never could one say that more forcefully than this However, someone like myself, who believes that evening—following last week’sEuropean Council meeting, Britain’s place—indeed, Britain’s interest—is to remain we really are up against it now. I am not criticising this a full member of the European Union, cannot possibly debate at all. recoil from the possibility of having European elections It needs to be recognised that the risk of a no deal in May, if only because if we have a referendum and exit has not disappeared. The cliff edge has been vote to remain, that is what we will have to have done. postponed from 29 March to either 12 April or 22 May, We will need Members of the European Parliament. I and the agreement being sought for the statutory hope that a way will be found of dealing with this issue instrument which I am glad to hear is coming forward without too much drama, and that if necessary we will will bring that into our domestic law as well as have those elections. international law. Both Houses have said extremely I very much welcome the fact that we now know, as forcefully that no deal must be taken off the table—it a result of an Answer given on 19 March to a Written must not be an option—and I find it pretty regrettable Questionof mine,thatwhatthenobleLord,LordCallanan, that the Government keep referring to it as the default and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, 1691 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1692

[LORD HANNAY OF CHISWICK] Lords may not think that that matters, but that is the said on 27 February was misleading the House. They fact of the matter and we should accept it. We should said that the legislation to hold European Parliament not try to deceive the public on this matter, which is of elections no longer existed— well, it does exist, as that greater concern to them than to many Members of nice little Written Answer says. I would be grateful if this House. the Minister would now tell the House that that is the This brings me to the Government’s deal. It is a position. deal that should give us some control over immigration. These are some of the messages that I would like Unfortunately,the subsequent White Paper has produced the other place to take very seriously when it returns, proposals for post-Brexit immigration which are dreadful. with added urgency, to this whole issue later this week, In the medium term, as I have mentioned before, they and considers the options facing the country. For far are much more likely to add to net migration than too long there has been absolute stasis in the handling reduce it. Beyond that, more generally, we would be of this matter. It is now time to break out of the rut tied into the EU with no voice, no vote and no sure that the Government have got into, to abandon attempts means of escape. We would face years of trade to run down the clock—which can only now end in negotiations with virtually no cards in our hand, as I disruption and lasting damage to the economy—and think my noble friend Lord Hannay was implying. to set out on a new and more promising course, What an astonishing outcome for a country with mandated by Parliament. our history of influence and achievement. However, I think we may find that the EU has overplayed its 9.29 pm hand, and I rather hope that, as a result, this deal will Lord Green of Deddington (CB): My Lords, it is a not go through. pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hannay, who Lastly, where can we go from here? The referendum was an extremely distinguished UK representative in indeed gave a clear instruction, as the Government Brussels. had requested. If a different path is now chosen, there As tail-end Charlie, I can be pretty brief. I was will have to be another referendum and, as the noble struck by a remark made by my noble friend Lord Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, pointed out, the Hennessy. He asked: what have we done to ourselves question has to include whether we wish to leave to find ourselves in this present position? I suggest entirely. That would mean that, at the end of a second that part of the answer is that we have lost touch with referendum, there would no longer be an argument ordinary working people. Part of that is that we have about people not understanding what was involved, et ignored their real concerns, including those about the cetera—they have been hearing about it for two years, scale of immigration to our country, but also many they are fed up with it—but they will have reached a other things, including housing and education. Worse view and we should not condescend to them. If we than that, they feel that we have condescended to find that the vote goes the same way, as I believe it them: that we know best and they should know better. might, so be it. I think almost anyone would accept that second referendum result. Equally, I would accept Immigration is only one issue, but it was undoubtedly a second referendum result that went in the opposite a major factor in the referendum, and it will be a direction. critical factor when the public come to judge the outcome. It is also an important element in two of the Let us be frank. The reputation of Parliament is at future courses proposed, an element that is often rock bottom. To seek to override purely by legislation distorted. The first concerns Norway. There, my fox a referendum that Parliament itself called would be a has also been shot by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. body blow to the institutions of our government and it The Norway model provides no useful benefit in terms must not happen. of immigration. Any measures are limited in scope and duration. They must be reviewed by a Joint 9.34 pm Committee with a view to abolition and there is a risk Baroness Ludford (LD): My Lords, I intend to be of retaliatory measures, so they have never been used, relatively brief. I hope I will be, not just because it is never will be used and are no use to us. getting late, or because I have nothing new to say—the The second aspect concerns Article 50. Some people noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, teased me have made the extraordinary claim that we could for saying that in our last debate—but because a lot control EU migration if we only adopted Belgian-type has changed. It would take me a very long time to get measures. These turn out to be measures designed to out of my system what I really feel about the incompetent deal with benefit tourism. Belgium has issued eviction and partisan way that this Government have behaved notices to a couple of thousand people a year, but no in the last three years—with their red lines, their one knows whether they left or whether they have appeal only to leave voters, and their prioritising of come back. For the UK, that is completely irrelevant. unity within the Tory party, which does not seem to We have 2 million EU citizens here and they arrive in have been a great success. I agree with the noble Lord, their tens of thousands every year. It is absolutely Lord Ricketts, who said that all of this has brought us unfeasible and in any case irrelevant to bring that to a state of national humiliation. We are in big trouble, argument. as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, said. The only honest conclusion—I do not think that One reason that I do not want to go on at too much the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was avoiding it—is that length is because I agree with so many who spoke reverting to EU membership means continuing with earlier in this debate, particularly the noble Lords, immigration that we cannot ourselves control. Noble Lord Kerr, Lord Lord Hannay, Lord Kerslake and 1693 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1694

Lord Ricketts, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, generation—they should have no problem holding and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I was struck another referendum. What are they afraid of? We particularly by the mention of patriotism and of the need a long enough extension of Article 50—for four colleagues of the father of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. or five months, say—to allow a people’s vote. It reminded me of the 97 year-old veteran who was at I believe that a lot of leave voters were protesting the march on Saturday. If I recall correctly, one of his against the system in 2016, and most of that protest tasks in the war was digging people out of the bomb-hit had nothing whatever to do with the EU. I do not deny city of Coventry, but his conclusion from his wartime that immigration was a factor, although three years on experience and the medals that he was awarded was to it has become less of a factor. But I say to the noble say “never again”. We must have the European Union Lord, Lord Green, that any consideration of continuing to build peace, security and prosperity. free movement must be looked at in the round, along I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, with the fact that British citizens are being denied free that fear of splitting the Conservative Party has been movement and the opportunities they expected to have, the guiding force over the last three years. Obviously, particularly young people and those who wanted to not being in the Tory party, I can only empathise, retire to, for example, France or Spain. It is a two-way rather than share the pain that must be felt by relatively street and we need to look at it entirely in the round, as reasonable people within that party. The complete loss well as reflecting the huge contribution that EU citizens of Cabinet collective responsibility has been the most make to this country, not just economically but socially dismaying. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly and culturally. highlighted the existence of a party within a party—the I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, that ERG. Obviously, if we had a decent electoral system, we need to focus on post Brexit, but we might define those people would have to stand under their own that term differently.I mean that, even if it is only clinging banner and not that of the Conservative Party. on to nurse for fear of something worse, we should As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, highlighted, remain in the EU; I think he means we should exit and Saturday was a great day. It was good-humoured and then deal with all the other problems. There are so well behaved; there was not a single incident that many crucial needs in this country. One of the tragedies required the attention of the police, just like in October. of the past three years is how all our energy, capacity Those commentators who said the mood was slightly and thinking have been taken up by Brexit. I feel that different from that in October were probably right. It myself. When I left the European Parliament, I was was very serious and determined, as well as enjoyable. really hoping to do things other than EU affairs—I do have other interests, as it happens—but this has been a I was interested to hear Mark Field MP, who is a straitjacket from which it has been difficult to escape. Minister, say that he could envisage supporting the But of course we will have less money to pursue those revocation of Article 50. Perhaps that has to do with other things, whether it is social care, decent housing, the high level of support in his constituency for the better skills training or youth services. Talk to anybody petition. Cleverer people than I have analysed those in the area of knife crime and you will learn that it is figures for all the constituencies; no doubt, there will not just the police but the lack of money for schools be some very thoughtful MPs looking at those figures. and youth services which is totally undermining the In many cases, the number of those who signed the ability to deal with that terrible problem. By post petition is greater than the majority that MPs enjoy. Brexit, therefore, I mean once the country has liberated The Prime Minister is showing contempt for both itself from this disastrous exercise. people and Parliament. She keeps invoking the will of I apologise that I have not been as brief as I the people but refuses to check whether, nearly three thought I would be. I am grateful that the Prime yearson,with1millionpeoplemarching,5.5millionpeople Minister confirmed that the extension knocks out the petitioning to revoke Article 50, and polls showing a 29 March date. She may be right that there would be majority support for remain, their views have evolved. legal confusion about the UK’s ability to implement She allows herself so many bites at the cherry but she EU law, but we would still be in the EU because of the will not allow voters a single reassessment, which is European Council decision on the extension. Can the quite arrogant. She also said she will take no notice of Minister confirm that in fact the repeal of the European indicative votes,which continues her high-handed attitude Communities Act under Section 1 of the EU withdrawal towards the House of Commons. The noble Viscount, Act has not been brought into force yet, the same as Lord Hailsham, and as my noble friend Lady Smith of the repeal of the European Parliamentary Elections Newnham both stressed that the 2016 referendum Act? An SI is needed for that, and that SI has not gone result is not a mandate for what is happening now on through, and so the European Communities Act is Brexit. No one could possibly have wanted to arrive in still in force. this situation. It should not be a problem to ask voters I am also pleased that the Prime Minister’s whether this still represents their views. Surely the announcement today,on 25 March, marks the anniversary people’s vote has to be between whatever deal MPs of the treaty of Rome. There seems to be something agree and remain. To those who say that no deal would significant about this coincidence. Can the Minister need to be on the ballot paper, I ask this: what is no clarify the categorisation of the European Council deal? What does it consist of? How do you describe it? decision as “international law”? Surely it is EU law, I really do not think that that is a runner. unless I have missed something. If Brexiters are so sure that leave would still win—and Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not in fact I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, ruled out no deal. I am afraid that that is an illustration that if it did, that would be the end of it, perhaps for a of her tendency to be not entirely straight and somewhat 1695 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1696

[BARONESS LUDFORD] issue but by another that is taking place at the moment, manipulative. On one side, she said that no deal had about which nobody can be the slightest bit proud. I been ruled out but on the other that it had not. She wish her well with her three candles project, which said, “Let me be clear”, then was nothing of the sort. I sounds a tremendous way of trying to heal some of agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that these divisions, as the most reverend Primate the the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, needs to clarify whether Archbishop of Canterbury told us would be necessary she really meant that no deal could be chosen only by on a previous occasion. an affirmative process. I will come to what I take from the debate so far, The noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Cormack, but I first want to deal with the legal issues that have reminded us that no deal would have a catastrophic arisen. Noble Lords know that I turn up at these effect. One thinks particularly of people with serious debates for that reason. We have not had many but I medical conditions such as epilepsy or cancer or who want to refer to a couple. We have had no change, are having dialysis, who are terrified. You see this all which we had all been expecting, in the legal issues the time on social media. Some of them are unable to relating to the backstop. We have had no further get their supplies now. What will happen is frightening. opinion from the Attorney-General. We have had no It is unbelievable that any Government would impose change, as we know, to the withdrawal agreement. It is this fear and anxiety on their citizens. clear that there will be no change to the part of the withdrawal agreement that says that the backstop will Lord Lilley: Did the noble Baroness not hear me continue unless and until there is a new agreement. read out the assurance from the Department of Health That has not changed at all. Maybe we will come back that there would be no interruption of supplies? Why to that at a later stage. is she indulging in this disgraceful scaremongering of There has been a suggestion—I think the only vulnerable people? person who mentioned it in this debate was the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—that Article 62 of the Vienna Baroness Ludford: I follow people who report their convention on the interpretation of treaties is a way own experience of going to the pharmacist and finding out of the problem. I fundamentally, seriously and already that they cannot get their supplies. I am sorry, critically disagree with that. From a letter in the Times, but whatever assurances the Government give, I am I know—rather to my surprise, because I admire him personally at the point where I believe the individual very much—that it has the support of the noble Lord, patients rather than the Government. Lord Pannick. I am sorry that he is not in his place, because he could jump up and tell me why I am wrong. We need a longer extension to be able to hold a He will have to do that on a later occasion. However, I people’s vote. If we have to participate in European have been back to the treaty and I do think he is wrong. elections, that is fine with these Benches. I would not The treaty says clearly that a fundamental change in be entirely surprised if some legal political fix will the circumstances existing at the time of a treaty’s eventually be found because everyone is ignoring the conclusion, and which was not foreseen by the parties, opinion from the European Parliament legal service can lead to its termination. I do not see how one can that says that we must hold European Parliament possibly say that a failure to agree a deal is something elections but if we do not it will not invalidate the that is not foreseen; obviously, that is what we have legality of the new European Parliament. That seems a been debating for some time. That does not seem to be straw in the wind that might point to a different an answer to the conundrum that has been put forward. solution. I look forward to the Minister’s answers. One question that was raised, and which might be 9.46 pm relevant, was whether international law trumps national law. Several noble Lords raised it, and it is referred to Lord Goldsmith (Lab): My Lords, nothing makes in the Prime Minister’s Statement. I notice that the me prouder of being a Member of your Lordships’ noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, in his House than sitting through a debate like this. Although place, so he can at least whisper the correct answer to we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, spectators the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is winding up this at the moment, the wisdom, as the noble Lord, debate. My understanding is this. It is rather as though Lord Cormack, said, strength of opinion and experience one is a member of a club. If the club’s rules say that shown in a debate like this is extraordinary and something you are no longer a member, or it decides that you are to be proud of. We also learned one or two things. I am no longer a member, you can say as much as you like not sure that I will get used to thinking of the noble that you continue to be a member, but you are not. I Lord, Lord Hennessy, as a national treasure. I still think that that is what is going on. Whether it is right think of Dame Vera Lynn as the original national to describe that as international law trumping national treasure. I can think hard about that, and I did not know law, I am not sure, but I am clear in my own mind that that the middle name of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, because the European Union has now said that the was Wolfgang, so one learns a lot in these debates. leaving date has changed, it has changed. Until that The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, date we will continue to be a member and after that knows how much I admire him, even though I do not date, we will not be. The fact that there is little legal agree with the conclusion of his speech. I was particularly discussion in this debate probably indicates how peripheral struck by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the these issues have been, compared with what your Bishop of Newcastle. She reminded us of the risks to Lordships have really been considering today, with the which Members of Parliament, particularly female wisdom, insight and perception that your Lordships Members, have been exposed—and not just by this show on these occasions. 1697 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1698

Lord Butler of Brockwell: If the noble Lord’s club this House, although perhaps not in those words. As I analogy is correct, why do we have to pass a statutory recall, he said that being alone was not Churchill’s instrument at all? wish or hope; it was his fear. Peace and security is a very important matter which no doubt the House of Lord Goldsmith: It is to change the club’s rules. In Commons will take into account when it considers this case, Parliament is the club. I was just trying to where we go from here. explain how I see the situation. I see the noble and Inevitably, your Lordships have talked about the learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rising to his feet and legitimacy of a referendum. Again, it is for the House gladly give way to him. of Commons to consider in its indicative votes whether Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con): My Lords, I that is a way forward. I myself have never understood think that there has been some discussion about this. the objections to a further referendum on democratic The situation is that the EU is in charge of the treaty. grounds. I appreciate that people who thought they Therefore, if we are not out of the treaty, we remain had achieved a particular result the first time round do members as a result of the treaty of the European not want to see it rerun. However, regarding legitimacy, Union. However, the treaty by itself was not the whole in an earlier debate in this House—I do not which one story, because we had to pass an Act of Parliament to it was; it might have been the first debate but perhaps make the treaty work in the United Kingdom. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, can tell me—the noble has happened, the EU has extended the date so far as Lord, Lord Lisvane, used the colourful if slightly the treaty is concerned, in order to make our law whimsical example of his maiden aunts being invited conform with the way the treaty works, the statutory to make a choice on the basis of inadequate information. instrument is required. Otherwise, there would be a I therefore agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, discontinuity between the treaty on the one hand and who asked why this would be undemocratic. the initial law on the other. As a result of what the European Council said, there has also been much discussion about the need to Lord Goldsmith: I entirely agree with what the hold further European elections. If that is the case, it noble and learned Lord has said. I see that the noble will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, and learned Lord, the Advocate-General, has come to inconvenient—one could perhaps put it more strongly sit next to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to put him than that—but I find it difficult to describe it as straight on all of this. undemocratic to ask people to vote in an election. Let us move on quickly to the things that matter That is perhaps why the noble Lord, Lord Butler of more than that. The issue is what the country is now Brockwell, referred to the need to give people the final faced with. In that debate we are now really a spectator, say.However, that is not for us to decide today.Looking as has been said. At this stage, we are watching as the at the annunciator, I see that there is a Division in the House of Commons considers what to do. We may Commons. Maybe I should sit down before we find well find that, through the mechanism of indicative out what is going to happen over the next few days. votes—personally, it is what I hope we will see—it will Arguments were powerfully put by my noble friend now consider all the possible alternative routes for this Lord Adonis. I am not sure that I agree with the country.As has been said by a number of your Lordships, sequencing that he has in mind but that was not the we are reaching that point at a very late stage and, as fullness of his observation. has also been said, that is as a result of the obduracy In an earlier debate, I drew an analogy with the play of the Prime Minister. One has to respect her stamina “Waiting for Godot”. At that stage, we thought that and perseverance but, as already raised in this debate, there would be a further opinion or a further amendment the fact remains that there are people whose voices to the legal position that would cause us to reconsider have not been heard by the Prime Minister. It was what we had been saying about that. I quoted the Irish remarkable to watch on the television yesterday who critic who had referred to “Waiting for Godot” as, was turning up at Chequers. I admire their motorcars, “a play in which nothing happens, twice”. and there were two exceptional ones that I envied, but I hope that we are not going to see nothing happening it was surprising for the people of this country to see three or four times. that this is how their future is being decided—by private discussions with just a small group of people. We have to move on for the sake of the country, and Now, I hope that that will not happen and that the it is now to the other place that we must look to get the House of Commons will take charge of the situation. guidance and establish the direction in which the country I have no doubt that it will take into account many of will be going. That is what I look forward to seeing at the points that your Lordships have discussed today. I the end of this evening when the House of Commons am glad that there was a reference during our debate decides about the procedure, and during the rest of to the position of young people. I have seen the this week, when it makes its decisions on the votes. benefits of Erasmus in my own family, and I saw the young people during the march protesting about their 10 pm lack of voice. The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the I think that only the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con): My Lords, referred to the contribution that the European Union today’s debate has allowed us the opportunity to explore has made to peace and security in Europe. I was struck the recent developments in relation to our exit from by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, at the EU. I am yet again grateful to all noble Lords who Saturday’s march and I am sorry that he is not in his have spoken for their insight and contributions, even place. This was powerful stuff. He has said it before in if one may say we did not hear much that was new 1699 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1700

[LORD CALLANAN] just outlined. Either of these scenarios would require or original. Indeed, noble Lords will not hear much a change in our domestic legislation to reflect the new that is new or original from me, but I will seek to date. address as many of the key points arising from the I can confirm that the Government have today laid debate as I can while conscious of the late hour. a draft statutory instrument under the EU withdrawal It is worth saying again that the experience and Act that provides for both of these possible agreed expertise demonstrated by noble Lords today is consistent extensions. This will be subject to the draft affirmative with the valuable contributions this House has made procedure, so it will be debated in each House and to the process of the UK leaving the EU. I thought the must come into force by 11 pm on Friday 29 March. debate started off very well and I agree with the noble As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal confirmed and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the right earlier, in this House, that debate will take place on reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle spoke some Wednesday, so we have it all to look forward to again. wise words in calling for a calm, civilised debate. I am In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, pleased to say that everybody in this House certainly Lady Ludford, this is to make sure that our domestic abidedbyherinstructions.ThenobleLord,LordAlderdice, statute book reflects the extension of Article 50, which spoke extremely well on the subject of reconciliation is already legally binding in international law. Not and compromise from his personal experience and having this instrument in place would cause serious provided sound advice to both Houses as we go forward problems and uncertainty regarding the domestic statute inthisdiscussion.Ipaytributetomanyothercontributions, book from 11 pm on 29 March. A large volume of EU from all sides of the House, including about the work exit legislation preparing the statute book for the of our Select Committees. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, moment that EU law ceases to apply has been extensively gave some powerful examples of the excellent work of debated in this House and is due to enter into force on those committees. exit day, which is currently defined in the withdrawal Act as 29 March at 11 pm. Over the past couple of weeks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has shared his excellent analogy of These regulations are necessary to bring domestic feeling as though in a holding pattern somewhere above law in line with the agreement at the international level. Aylesbury. I know that my right honourable friend the Without this instrument, there would be a clash in Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who actually domestic law, because contradictory provisions would represents Aylesbury, will tell you that there are no apply to both EU rules and new domestic rules finer patches in the country. Indeed, I noticed at the simultaneously. It is therefore vital that the instrument weekend that he took to the airwaves to make it clear is approved by Parliament so that we can ensure that that he has no plans to move from that lovely patch of the statute book accurately reflects that the UK will England to a more well-known address in London. I remain a member state until at least 11 pm on 12 April. hope the noble and learned Lord will not mind if I take Lord Adonis: The Minister has made a very important his analogy a little further and say that the pilot has statement.Arewetounderstandthat,if thethirdmeaningful now identified a runway and that now is the moment votedoesnottakeplacetomorrow,thestatutoryinstrument of decision for the other place as to where we land. changingtheexitdateto12AprilwillbelaidonWednesday? The legally binding assurances secured by the Prime In what circumstances will we debate a 22 May extension Minister mean that, in the unlikely event that the backstop rather than a 12 April extension? is ever used, it will only be temporary, and that the UK and the EU will begin work immediately to replace the Lord Callanan: The statutory instrument has already backstop with alternative arrangements by the end of been laid. It reflects the decision of the European Council, December 2020. As my noble friend the Leader of the so both potential dates are included as options,depending House set out earlier today, the European Council onwhetherthemeaningfulvoteisapproved—notnecessarily also agreed that if there is a successful vote on the tomorrow but this week. That was the decision laid down withdrawal agreement this week, the date of our departure by the Council and agreed to by the Prime Minister. could be extended to 22 May to allow time for our In response to the questions asked by my noble friend Parliament to agree and ratify the deal. Lord Hailsham and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, no deal remains the legal default at 11 pm on 12 April, However, should Parliament not agree a deal this if that is where we end up. The Prime Minister was week, the European Council has agreed to extend simply stating that Parliament is likely to intervene to Article 50 until 12 April, which would then become the prevent no deal, if a deal has not been agreed by then. point at which we either leave with no deal or present This is in line with her comments on 26 February, an alternative plan. The Government’s position is when she told the House of Commons: clear that the best way in which to leave the European “So the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on Union is in a smooth and orderly manner,by supporting 29 March if there is explicit consent in this House for that the negotiated withdrawal agreement. The point was outcome”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; col. 166.] powerfully made by my noble friends Lord Bridges, Lord Howell and Lord Cormack, as well as, somewhat Viscount Hailsham: Is my noble friend saying that, surprisingly, by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and perhaps in order to secure a no-deal Brexit, the House of slightly reluctantly by my noble friend Lord Lilley and Commons has to approve that affirmatively? the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Lord Callanan: I do not want to go further than the The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others talked comments of the Prime Minister which I have just about extending Article 50. Our agreement with the quoted. This is in line with her comments on 26 February, EU provides for two possible durations, which I have when she said: 1701 Brexit [25 MARCH 2019] Brexit 1702

“So the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on before noble Lords get too excited, she was referring 29 March if there is explicit consent in this House for that to a forthcoming book, which we will all read with outcome”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; col. 166.] great interest, on the history of European referenda, I will reply to my noble friend Lord Balfe, who and how she thought referenda were a device for called for an indefinite extension to Article 50. I am demagogues and dictators and were always a bad idea, afraid to tell him that that is not possible. Any extension but maybe we should have just one more of them, so has to have an end date. As he will know from European bad are they. Of course, ignoring referendum results is law, Article 50 is a mechanism for leaving the EU, and a common feature of the European politics that she an indefinite extension is, of course, not leaving. studies so closely. A number of noble Lords, including the noble and Many noble Lords spoke about revoking Article 50 learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Viscount, and mentioned the online petition and the march that Lord Hailsham, spoke about the European Parliament we saw at the weekend. I noticed that the noble Baroness, elections, a subject very familiar to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, spoke approvingly of both, but carefully Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and of course avoided committing her party and saying whether myself. The Prime Minister has been clear that, should Labour is actually in favour of either of those options. there be a further extension to Article 50 beyond Indeed, if she carries on sitting on the fence, she might 22 May, that would mean participation in the European end up with spelks in her posterior. There is no doubt elections. As she has said before, it is our firm belief that there are clear and strongly held views on both that it would be wrong to ask the people of the United sides of the debate. That has been clear since the Kingdom, three years after voting to leave the EU, to referendum, when the largest democratic exercise in then vote in the European elections. our history took place, with 17.4 million people voting to leave—as noble Lords are no doubt tired of me saying. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Why do the Government think it is a particular burden to undertake European My old sparring partner,the House’s resident heckler, elections? Is it not a positive exercise in democracy the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and indeed the noble that the Minister should welcome for a number of Baroness, Lady Altmann, talked about the impressive reasons? Will he confirm that it would in fact be march and petition. They were indeed impressive. Let possible for Peers to participate in those elections? me say, however, that we govern this country by the ballot box and by this Parliament and not by numbers on demonstrations, or indeed by internet polls. I noticed Lord Callanan: I think I answered the first point in that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was very careful my statement, but I think it is possible for Peers to not to mention either—because, of course, he was a participate. A number of Peers have been Members of member of the Blair Government when we had a the European Parliament, but of course they need to similar, and even bigger, demonstration against the suspend their membership of this House while they Iraq war and by the Countryside Alliance—and we all are in the European Parliament. As we do not want it know what happened as a result of those demonstrations. to happen, we do not need to speculate further about that. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, slightly bizarrely called on us to revoke Article 50 and then to hold a referendum. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, I agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin Lord Newby, about amendments in the Commons, I and Oaksey, made on this. It seems slightly strange. If think he spoke approvingly of some of the amendments we do that, what are we going to hold a referendum in tonight’s House of Commons vote. I assume that he on? Is he seriously saying that we could revoke—in was not so approving of the one last week in which other words, tell the EU unconditionally that we are they voted decisively against a further people’s vote. going to stay as members and then maybe, possibly, decide that we are going to leave again? I think that Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Since the Minister has that was possibly one of the more ridiculous of his just commented on the European Parliament, could strange ideas. he please answer the question I asked about the way The Government have long been clear that failing that he misled the House previously and said that to deliver on that vote would, in our view, be a failure there was no way on the statute book by which we of our democracy. On this point I agree with the noble could carry out the European elections, which turns Baroness, Lady Deech. In response to my noble friend out to be untrue, and which has been corrected by him Lord Hailsham, it remains a matter of firm policy that in a written reply of 19 March? There is no impediment this Government will not be revoking Article 50 because other than the unwillingness of the Government to to do so would contradict the result of the first people’s use the laws that remain in force. vote, which we are committed to respecting. This Government are committed to delivering on the result Lord Callanan: As the noble Lord has correctly of that referendum and leaving in a smooth and observed, I have answered that question in a written orderly way. response to him. Anybody who is interested can read I was particularly struck by the interesting and that response. insightful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith In response to the second question from the noble of Newnham. She referred, for noble Lords who did Lord, Lord Newby, we cannot commit the Government not hear her, to her sadomasochistic tendencies. Now, to delivering the outcome of any vote held in the 1703 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit: Article 50 1704

[LORD CALLANAN] Brexit: Article 50 House of Commons, but the Prime Minister has been Motion clear that we are committed to engaging constructively in the process and aiding the House. In the other place 10.15 pm this evening, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has confirmed that the Government will find time Tabled by Lord Adonis later in the week to facilitate the process if the amendment That this House calls upon Her Majesty’s in the name of my right honourable friend the Member Government to revoke the notification of 29 March for West Dorset is in fact not approved. 2017 in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. I am grateful as always for the many contributions made in the debate. The Government are focused on Lord Adonis (Lab): My Lords, the Minister’s response finding a way for the other place to support the deal so was almost enough to provoke me into making a further that we can leave the EU in a smooth and orderly speech, particularly his remark that the proposal to manner. As the Prime Minister set out, the negotiated revoke is one of my more ridiculous ideas. The last deal before the other place seeks to deliver on the idea that I set forward to the House that he greeted as referendum, retain trust in our democracy and respect ridiculous was that we would not be leaving the European the concerns of those who voted to remain. If the Union on 29 March 2019, so this is a sure sign that it other place supports that deal, we can end the uncertainty will come to pass. However, I do not believe that we and the divisive debate, and move forward to a new should embark on such a momentous debate at 10.16 pm, future outside the EU. That is what the Government so I will not be proceeding with the Motion this evening. are committed to doing. I beg to move. Motion not moved. Motion agreed. House adjourned at 10.16 pm. GC 311 Arrangement of Business[25 MARCH 2019] Heavy Duty Vehicles Regulations 2019 GC 312

Grand Committee access to information on the performance of HDVs of different makes with similar characteristics, allowing Monday 25 March 2019 them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. It also enables vehicle manufacturers to compare their Arrangement of Business vehicles’ performance with their competitors, providing Announcement an increased incentive for innovation. Finally,publication allows the analysis of the data, for example to assess 3.30 pm the penetration level of certain technologies and to support the proposed future CO2 emission reduction The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness standards for HDVs. Fookes) (Con): My Lords, I give the usual reminder: if there were to be a Division in the House, we should The regulations that we are discussing today amend then adjourn for 10 minutes. the EU regulation to ensure that it continues to function correctly after exit day. Through this SI, all relevant data calculated in line with the certification regulation Heavy Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel will be monitored, reported and published. The data Consumption) (Amendment) (EU Exit) will be available to all stakeholders. The main policy Regulations 2019 content, including the purpose and objectives of the Considered in Grand Committee current EU regulation, remains unchanged by this SI. Provisions about the monitoring and reporting timetable, 3.30 pm data to be monitored, HDVs in scope, fines and publication of data will also remain unchanged. Moved by Baroness Sugg The focus of these amendments is on ensuring that That the Grand Committee do consider the Heavy the EU regulation will continue to apply to HDVs Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel Consumption) registered in the UK after exit day, and to transfer (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. responsibilities from the Commission to the Secretary of State. For example, after EU exit manufacturers The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, will need to report data for new HDVs registered in the Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con): My UK to the Secretary of State and not to the Commission, Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the and any fines would be levied in pounds rather than powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) euros. Act 2018 and will be required if the UK leaves the Given the minor changes proposed, a formal European Union without a deal. The regulations correct consultation has not carried out. However, the deficiencies in EU regulation 2018/956, which concerns Government have made stakeholders aware of this the monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions from, instrument and their plan for its introduction into UK and fuel consumption of, HDVs—heavy duty vehicles— law. such as trucks, buses and coaches. Correcting the inoperabilities within the existing Emissions from the UK HDV sector made up 16% of EU regulation will ensure that there continues to be a CO2 emissions from transport in 2016. At the European functioning legislative and regulatory regime which level, HDVs account for about a quarter of road allows for the collection and monitoring of HDV transport emissions. To address this, the European emissions data in a no-deal scenario. As set out in the Commission introduced three measures. The first was Government’s strategy The Road to Zero, we are the introduction, through the certification regulations committed to, in December 2017, of a new computer based tool, “a future approach as we leave the European Union that is at least VECTO, which came into effect from 1 January 2019. as ambitious as the current arrangements for vehicle emissions The second measure is monitoring and reporting regulation”. regulations, which the statutory instrument we are This SI supports that commitment. I beg to move. debating today is based on. The final measure of the package is a legislative proposal to set CO2 emission Lord McNally (LD): My Lords, I presume that when standards for new HDVs, which was agreed by the Constantinople or Rome fell, there were still committees Environment Council on 20 December 2018. sitting somewhere in both cities looking at issues such The monitoring and reporting EU regulation—the as drainage and transport. The record should show second measure—came into force on 29 July 2018. It that the House of Lords has felt it necessary to adjourn requires member states and HDV manufacturers to at this moment but the Committee looking at statutory monitor certain data relating to the CO2 emissions instruments for exiting the European Union continues and fuel consumption of new HDVs registered in the to sit. Of course, this instrument has been introduced EU from 1 January 2019. Manufacturers must report that by the Minister with her usual clarity and good sense. data to the European Commission from 28 February 2020. We welcome the commitment by the Government The Commission will hold a database, verify data to continue with the monitoring of CO2 from heavy quality and compile and publish an annual report. goods vehicles. It is important to ensure that the UK is There are provisions for administrative fines for HDV meeting its target in relation to emissions and air manufacturers if these data requirements are not met. quality, and reporting is key to keeping us on track for The publication of data collected under the regulation reducing emissions and air pollution. However, we will increase the transparency of HDV CO2 emissions have to face the fact that, by leaving the European and fuel consumption and underpin the new emission Union, we will lose its valuable oversight in ensuring that reduction targets. It will provide transport operators the Government comply with air quality legislation. GC 313 Heavy Duty Vehicles Regulations 2019[LORDS] Heavy Duty Vehicles Regulations 2019 GC 314

[LORD MCNALLY] Turning to the generality of what the statutory We have not been the greatest pathfinder in terms instrument does, I think it obviously makes sense of environmental protection. I once worked for the water within the general theme of developing controls on industry and, following European legislation, that industry transport-related CO2 emissions. I have only three real was dragged kicking and screaming into what was areas of concern, and certainly none which would probably the 19th century at the time, and I think that cause me to oppose the statutory instrument. the same may be true of air quality. I am not sure First, in paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory that we will be as good at this on our own. We need to Memorandum, sub-paragraph c) says among other prioritise the reduction of emissions, given the thousands things: of deaths being caused every year and the serious “Some data is commercially sensitive and exempt from impact they can have on health, particularly on that of publication”. children. That seems to me to be completely opposite to the These regulations were initially conceived in tandem concept of the statutory instrument and the regulation with targets for CO2 reduction that were suggested by that it modifies. Surely, its whole concept is that all the Commission and revised by the European Parliament. data is available to everybody in the same format, so Will the targets set by the Government keep in tandem that even small firms with one or two vehicles would with any standards set by the EU Commission and have no problem in comparing manufacturers when Parliament? they consider purchasing one of these heavy duty

We welcome the use of the ambitious CO2 reduction vehicles. Having said that the data is commercially targets, but we must ensure that the industry is sufficiently sensitive—and I cannot see why that statement is there supported to meet them. What are the Government at all—if it is commercially sensitive, that would require doing to encourage the adoption of ZEV/LEV HDVs—I us to be kept in line with the commercially sensitive am pleased to note that, after I inquired earlier, the decisions that the EU made; otherwise, the usefulness Minister knows what that means—be that through of this data-collecting exercise would otherwise be subsidies or improvements in the infrastructure? How rapidly eroded. Does the department have any plans will we help the industry to keep pace with developments to somehow consult the European Union on what of zero and low-emission HDVs? Do the Government areas of commercially sensitive data it is going to envisage that the fines levied against those who fail to suppress? I hope that the answer will be none. comply with the data gathering will be in line with I was sufficiently curious about this SI to look at those proposed by the EU, and will they keep pace regulation 2018/956. I am amazed to find that its with the fines to ensure compliance? requirements are in fact for the collection of 78 pieces The instrument provides for further regulations to of data without air drag values—which I could not be made to set out the procedures by which manufacturers understand at all but which had their own separate can notify the Secretary of State of errors in data. table. One thing that struck me was that about a third That will be key to ensuring that we have an effective of the regulation was made up of the preamble, which and transparent system. When will those regulations is 22 paragraphs and four pages long. I think that the be brought forward? Minister has already alluded to some things that it These regulations were brought forward by the says: European Union as part of a wide package of measures “The Commission’s 2016 European Strategy for low-emission to ensure that Europe’s future mobility system is, mobility sets the ambition that, by mid-century, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will need to be at least 60 % lower than “safe, clean and efficient for all EU citizens”. in 1990, and be firmly on the path towards zero”. What impact could our exit from the EU have on our Does this regulation coming into English law mean future plans to reduce harmful emissions? that we are accepting the Commission’s low-emissions Finally, the Minister mentioned that it was not strategy targets? Is it part of our law, or is that covered thought necessary to go through a formal consultation somewhere in the complexity of the European Union process, but were environmental and health groups (Withdrawal) Act? After it comes into law, where consulted in any way during the discussions? Some would one find it? Would that be in the Kew records, have made accusations of a lack of transparency while as I call them? the regulations were considered. Finally, how would the regulation be enforced? The Further, what continuing access will we have to statements in its preamble are really statements that EU-wide data collection and analysis in order to drive the Government should have regard to in the future. up standards and related matters? Are we not cutting ourselves off from the best practice data which helps 4.45 pm to drive good standards? Baroness Sugg: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for As I say, we welcome the way in which the instrument their consideration of these draft regulations. I agree has been presented and the work done, but it leaves with the noble Lord, Lord McNally,about the importance these questions unanswered. of addressing the issues around air quality, and of course emissions from transport vehicles are a key part of that. Our aim as a Government is to put the Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab): My Lords, I make my standard UK at the forefront of the design and manufacture of statement that I wish I was not here and that we were zero-emission vehicles, with all new cars and vans not preparing for a no-deal scenario. I fear that such a being effectively zero emission by 2040. We recently scenario would be every bit as bad as predicted. I think we published our strategy The Road to Zero, which sets must all hope and pray that it does not happen. out a clear pathway to zero emissions and an end to GC 315 Heavy Duty Vehicles Regulations 2019[25 MARCH 2019] Food and Farming Regulations 2019 GC 316 the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and sensitive data exemption was agreed at European level vans by 2040, with the aim that by 2050 almost every and that is set within the regulations. It means that it car and van will be zero emission. The aim is that at will be published more in the form of a range rather least half of new cars will be ultra low emission than exact points. However, only data that is genuinely by 2030. commercially sensitive will be withheld. Wewill replicate In respect of HDVs, which we are discussing today, the data publication for UK-registered vehicles in the we want to see the development and deployment of event of no deal. The content and the date of the zero-emission vehicles. For example, we have agreed report are set in the original EU regulations and are an industry-wide voluntary commitment from the freight carried over by the withdrawal Act. That will not industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by change, so it will still be possible to use UK data as a 2025, and we are working closely with the industry to comparison against EU data—aside from the data develop an ultra low emissions standard for trucks that will be exempted for commercially sensitive reasons, and increasing the supply and sustainability of alternative and that will be the same for the EU and the UK. All low-carbon fuels. The SI we are considering today the data will be openly available, and the EU 27 plus the UK will be able to be looked at side by side. supports those aims by maintaining the current CO2 emission monitoring and reporting requirements and The preamble to the EU regulation provides underpins the new regulation which is currently being background only and its content is not legally binding. finalised before being brought forward. The entire regulation will be carried over into UK law, but the targets set will be met through future regulations. The noble Lord asked about fines. The fine levels The content and the preamble will stay, but specific will remain the same as those set out in the European targets will be set through future legislation. regulation, albeit having been translated into pounds I think that I have answered all the questions. I will rather than euros. The powers in the regulation and go through Hansard and check. If I have not answered the SI do not allow for a change to the level of the any questions, I will follow up on them in writing. fines, so they will stay the same. This SI is essential to ensuring that we maintain The noble Lord also asked about consultation. As I control of HDVs registered to travel on UK roads and said in my opening speech, given the limited impact of that the system to support that continues to function this SI on industry and businesses, a formal consultation from day one after EU exit. It will help us to reach our has not been carried out, but there was a full consultation climate change goals and ensure that we do all we can when the initial EU regulation came into force. That to improve air quality. was carried out by the Commission. It was a full, open and public consultation, which received around 100 replies, Motion agreed. and of course environmental groups were closely involved in the formation of the regulation. However, as we are Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) keeping things the same, we have not spoken specifically Regulations 2019 to environmental groups about this SI. Considered in Grand Committee On the new CO2 emission standards regulation, the EU has provisionally agreed targets and incentives for 3.51 pm HDVs to 2025 and 2030. They are due to be agreed by Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton the European Parliament later this month and, once ThattheGrandCommitteedoconsidertheFoodand agreed, they will come into legal effect via a new Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. European regulation. As that is yet to be finalised and adopted, how its requirements might be implemented Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con): My Lords, these in the UK will depend on when that is achieved, but regulations group elements of four policy regimes: our commitment to tackle climate change remains spirit drinks; wines; genetically modified organisms; strong. We know that we must do more to meet our and agricultural direct payments. The purpose of this collective commitments on climate change and, indeed, statutory instrument is to make purely technical or the UK Government was one of those who led the way on operability corrections ensuring that these regimes increasing our ambition during the recent EU negotiations continue to function as intended. These corrections on emissions reduction as well as on standards for deal with removing or amending references, converting passenger and light commercial vehicles. As I have EU procedures to UK procedures and transferring said, in the strategy The Road to Zero, the Government EU functions to the UK. The four policy regimes are have committed that, as we leave the EU, we will dealt with together in a single instrument for the ensure that we are at least as ambitious as the current convenience of both Houses. I will cover each in turn. arrangements for vehicle emissions regulations. First, this instrument makes operable the regulation On data sharing, raised by the noble Lord, and protection of, and methodology for analysis of, Lord Tunnicliffe, one of the key advantages of the EU spirit drinks once we exit the EU. The amendments regulation is that the data will be published and shared. specify protection for the UK’s geographical indications, Currently, the data will be reported by manufacturers and this instrument will make the necessary operability in member states of the EU, and the Commission will amendments to ensure ongoing protection of the US spirit maintain and manage its publication. It will be published drinks Bourbon whiskey and Tennessee whiskey,following annually from 31 October 2020 and the data will be the signing of the UK-US spirit drinks agreement in openly available. Although some of it is commercially January. This instrument will also prevent EU 27 spirit sensitive and thus exempt from publication, we expect drink geographical indications being automatically the vast majority to be published. The commercially recognised as protected in the UK after leaving the EU. GC 317 Food and Farming Regulations 2019[LORDS] Food and Farming Regulations 2019 GC 318

[BARONESS VERE OF NORBITON] only administrative functions to the Secretary of State With respect to wines, this instrument will amend from the European Commission. The Minister at the EU retained law to make it operable from the day of time the Committee made the recommendation to exit. The amendments will allow us to continue to apply change this SI to an affirmative instrument, George or enforce provisions relating to detailed wine-making Eustice, agreed that this instrument should be made practices, including the blending and analysis of wine. subject to the affirmative procedure, and it is a pleasure The absence of these amendments would undermine for me to speak to it before your Lordships today. consumer confidence in wines, damage our trade in Defra has consulted with the devolved Administrations and production of wines and impact on the significant on the amendments contained in this instrument, and contribution the sector makes to the UK economy. they have been consented to. For genetically modified The amendments for spirits, together with those for organisms, decisions to release or market GMOs are a wine, are part of establishing geographical indication devolved matter in Wales and Scotland and a transferred schemes in the UK. These amendments are a component matter in Northern Ireland. However, there are no of the wider suite of Defra legislation on geographical GM products in the approval pipeline for release in indications, including the Environment, Food and Rural the UK and none is expected in the foreseeable future. Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, We have engaged extensively and listened to debated on 13 March and approved on 19 March, and stakeholders’ views on all these policy areas. We have the Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines and Residues consulted on the issue of geographical indications, (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, debated which cover both wines and spirit drinks, and continue on 20 March and approved on 21 March. to stay close to our key stakeholders in those sectors. No consultation was undertaken for direct payments, On genetically modified organisms, the SI makes because the changes are entirely technical and intended purely technical changes to keep the retained EU to ensure current provisions continue to be available legislation operable on exit from the EU.The amendments after EU exit. will allow us to continue to regulate and enforce the applications process for consent to market genetically On GMOs, a technical notice and, more recently, modified organisms in the UK. It will also allow us to further guidance was published. The changes are entirely continue to regulate the export of genetically modified technical and intended to ensure currently available organisms, both those which originate in the UK and provisions continue to be available after exit. This those which are merely passing through the UK. It SI makes minor corrections to earlier GMO-specific also seeks to correct minor errors in exit statutory SIs, on which Defra engaged with parties with an instruments which have already been laid. interest in GMOs. An impact assessment has not been prepared for Finally, on direct payments, this instrument will this instrument, as its purpose is to maintain existing make minor technical amendments to roll over currently regulatory standards and there is expected to be minimal existing provisions in retained EU law relating to: impact on business. I beg to move. environmentally sensitive permanent grassland; buffer strips, field margins and strips of eligible hectares Baroness Byford (Con): My Lords, I thank my along forest edges without production; the ratio of noble friend for introducing these amendments, which permanent grassland; and criteria for ecological focus are technical and will allow a smooth transition when areas. No policy change is made by these corrections. we leave the EU. As she said, they are technical They address drafting errors in two of Defra’s EU exit changes that affect certain aspects. I have a couple of statutory instruments relating to direct payments. I things to raise, and I should declare an interest since apologise to noble Lords for this oversight. The earlier our farm receives environmental payments—she referred instruments were laid at a time when Defra was preparing to grassland, buffers and ecological areas that are a large amount of EU exit secondary legislation, but included in this SI for which we receive payments. Defra has sought to rectify the errors at the earliest opportunity. My question concerns the fact that, as she referred to, the Select Committee selected this for the affirmative In seeking only to allow the policy regimes to procedure. She said that this was not really necessary continue to function as intended, this instrument generates and that it was due to something that had happened no new enforcement bodies and there is no significant earlier. Was that known before this SI was produced in impact expected on the existing enforcement regime. the way it is? Otherwise, it seems unusual to have it It is worth noting that this statutory instrument was included as an affirmative instrument, although I accept originally laid under the negative procedure. However, what she said. the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee I also want to ask her whether there will be changes recommended that the regulations be made under to any other statutory instruments coming through. It the affirmative procedure. The suite of legislation on is getting more and more confusing for those of us geographical indications under the EU withdrawal looking at them to look at something that happened a Act confers new duties on the Secretary of State. This week or two ago and try to compare it with what is is in consequence of the Secretary of State taking on happening now. I hope she is able to tell me that this functions from the European Commission as a result will be the last of this set of statutory instruments that of withdrawal. However, it is not this instrument that we shall look at. confers new legislative duties; for example, for spirits So my two questions are: why was it included in this drinks it was the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SI if that decision had not been reached before? Will there (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which we be some consolidation of any further SIs coming through? debated earlier this month. This instrument confers That would make life much easier for all of us. GC 319 Food and Farming Regulations 2019[25 MARCH 2019] Food and Farming Regulations 2019 GC 320

4 pm Defra has indicated that it will bring forward guidance. The Minister has told us that this will be published Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD): before exit day and will be on the Defra website from My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to exit day. I hope this guidance has been written and has this SI and for her time, and that of the officials, in the taken account of the various permutations currently briefing last week. This is something of a catch-all under discussion in the other place. There could be statutory instrument, clearing up elements omitted serious implications for some of our most revered from the previous SIs we have debated on: geographical wines, spirits and produce if the guidance is not clear indications for wines and spirits; minor amendments and readily available. to GMOs, veterinary medicines and residues; and common agricultural policy direct payments to farmers. Tomorrow,we will debate more SIs related to agriculture. Lord Dubs (Lab): My Lords, may I add my thanks I will not make the obvious comment about the efficacy to the Minister and to her team of officials who met us of debating them all on the same day. I have great last week to go through the issues contained in this SI? sympathy and support for the comments made by the It was helpful. It may have shortened what I was going noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Hopefully, this will be to say; it may not have done. the final SI in the process of tidying up those elements missed out of previous legislation. I start with a question about GMOs. The Minister has explained that certain corrections have had to be There is also relevance to the devolved Administrations: made to legislation that had already been passed, and Regulations 9 and 11 apply only to England and that this is a bit of a tidying-up procedure. We accept Wales, and 10 and 13 to Northern Ireland. I have only this, because we know that there has been pressure to a few comments to make, as most of the issues have produce a lot of these SIs very quickly. already been debated at length. I suppose it is necessary to ask the Minister about Regulation 3(21)(i) makes amendments in Annexe II impact assessments. These SIs—I am talking about of the EU regulation, GMOs in particular now—will surely add some existing “in the section headed ‘Other spirit drinks’”, burden to UK authorities as well as to the devolved Administrations. In Northern Ireland, I assume that where there are references to “Rum-Verschnitt” and the decisions will be made by civil servants, as there is “Slivovice”. All this is very interesting, but I cannot nobody else to make them. Is this right? It does not see its relevance. I do not know an awful lot about seem satisfactory but, in the absence of a functioning Rum-Verschnitt, but I know that Slivovice is produced Administration, the whole situation in Northern Ireland in the Balkans, in Bosnia, and I would like to know is not satisfactory. I presume this is all that can be done. why these two spirits should get a specific mention. Perhaps the Minister could say. Can I ask one specific question? If in future we wanted to tighten up the regulations about GMOs, On page 12, in Regulation 5, we come to the crux of would it be straightforward? Would there be any the matter. As the Minister has said, this relates to implications for trade with the EU? I assume that the Tennessee whiskey and bourbon, currently imported reverse would not apply. I hope we would not want to from the United States. It also covers spirits produced liberalise our regulations but, if we did, it would run in Mexico, tequila and mescal, which will be added to counter to EU practices. the list along with Tennessee whiskey and bourbon. I I turn to the question of direct payments. I have am pleased that this SI will make it possible for these some sympathy with the Minister here. For a time, I spirits to continue to be freely available in the UK. was a junior Minister in Northern Ireland and agriculture While I am not personally a bourbon drinker, my was one of my responsibilities. I will not bore the husband—whose relatives all live in the Deep South in Committee with anecdotes about Agriculture Council the USA—is, and I would not want him to have meetings in Brussels, amusing as some of them were. difficulty getting hold of his favourite tipple. Although it is not quite on the same subject, I will say Such is the nature of this wide-ranging SI that it that we consistently had tremendous support from the covers Irish cream and Somerset cider brandy—I have Irish Government. Whenever an issue came before the read it, and that is what it says. I had better look in my Agriculture Council—and there were many—the Irish drinks cupboard to see what I have and whether I will Government went out of their way to be supportive of readily be able to purchase further supplies in future. the British Government. I should like this to be on the It would have been extremely helpful if the Explanatory record. I presume that the corrections that had to take Memorandum had listed the drinks covered in annexe III, place were as a result of oversights. We will move on referred to in the SI. from there. As the Minister said, the Secondary Legislation Finally, I turn to the question of wines and spirits. Scrutiny Committee felt that the regulations went In the briefing with the Minister, we spent a little time beyond what is required to maintain the operability of talking about tequila and mescal. These are two alcoholic the law after EU exit by conferring a new duty on the drinks which I have never touched. I did my best to Secretary of State in respect of GIs which, find some tequila before today’s Committee, but I failed. I wonder if the Minister would care to buy me a “could have a considerable commercial and economic impact”. tequila at some time in the future—or allow me to buy I agree with this statement and remain concerned that one for her. Weare talking about retained EU legislation many of the catch-all SIs that cover such a wider range on wine and spirits. I understand that the issue is of topics may have implications for many regional about the geographical origin of products. We have producers. been talking about Tennessee whiskey and bourbon. GC 321 Food and Farming Regulations 2019[LORDS] Food and Farming Regulations 2019 GC 322

[LORD DUBS] those legislative functions came across in other SIs that I understand that the Mexican drinks will come on the were affirmative anyway and have already been discussed scene at some point in future when further negotiations by the Committee. have taken place. So we are going ahead with some of My noble friend also asked whether there were these drinks and the others will presumably follow. further statutory instruments to come. There are a few My understanding is that geographical indications but not as many as there were, so that is a bonus. are used to identify a product whose quality, reputation Nearly all of them have now been scheduled for debate, or other characteristics are linked to its geographical so we have a good idea of what is left. Obviously, we origin. This will now be the responsibility of the Secretary are consolidating where possible to ensure that we do of State, having previously been an EU responsibility. not have too many debates. It is vital to ensure that I assume that the question of geographical indication our legislation is up to date for exit day, whenever that will cover many products in addition to those covered comes. We can certainly say that we are in the end by this SI—this is a fairly common thing. It is right game now; we are at the end of the process and we and proper that we should continue to co-operate with should have everything in place very soon. As my the EU and retain as many of the existing EU regulations noble friend will know,there are more coming tomorrow, as possible in practice. so I hope she will join us then. I am not quite clear why these regulations would replace the current annexe with a shorter list. I hope I Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that. The have this right. I understand that only UK spirit drink difficulty is that sometimes some people are present in GIs would be automatically protected in UK law after the debates, such as the one that we are having now, exit. In contrast, UK GIs for spirit drinks will continue who have not had the advantage of hearing the earlier to be recognised by the EU as third-country GIs after debates that we have had, which makes it quite difficult exit, including in a no-deal scenario. I am not quite for all of us—myself included—to pick up on some of clear if I have understood that, and maybe the Minister them. I am grateful for her clarification. I am well will be able to clarify it. aware that we have quite a lot more to come, but my The questions are: how prepared are we to operate our hope is that they will be complete in themselves so we own GI systems? Can the Minister assure the Committee do not have to go over ground that we have already that the department will have the necessary staff and covered, which I think has been the frustrating bit resources, and of course the expertise, to run the new with some of these instruments. system? The Government have stated that Defra will publish guidance on how to apply to the UK GI scheme in March 2019, which is this month, so can Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I completely accept that the Minister give an update on the completion of that comment. I recognise that this is sometimes very difficult guidance? Lastly, what consultation has the department because we are dealing with the same issues for different undertaken with the devolved authorities over the products in different SIs. Certainly, the instruments design and implementation of the new UK GI that will be under discussion tomorrow are much scheme? more wholesome and complete. I turn to some of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who also made the point, Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank all noble Lords which I will take on the chin, about the efficacy of for their contributions to what has turned out to be a debating all these separately. As I have said before, short debate. I expected it to be fairly short, but some that issue is always to be balanced with the danger of very valuable questions have been raised so I will be having too many issues in one place; we all know of very pleased to answer as many as I can. If there is the famous BEIS SI that was over 500 pages long. I more that I can add then I will certainly write. recognise that there is a balance to be struck, and both I turn first to the comments made by my noble noble Baronesses have made some very good points. friend Lady Byford. It is always a pleasure to have her in the Committee to make sure that we are doing 4.15 pm things correctly, and she certainly does that. She referred to the issue of the Select Committee and the instrument The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble being made affirmative. Without wishing to detract at Lord, Lord Dubs, noted the guidance on the new GI all from the valuable work done by the Select Committee, scheme. We published an updated technical notice on it is the case that the functions being transferred 5 February 2019, which offers GI stakeholders guidance across in this SI are administrative functions, not for continued planning in the event of no deal. Further legislative. There was a potential slight misunderstanding guidance will be available on the day of exit, but we about exactly which powers were coming across. Other are not going to publish further guidance ahead of legislative functions have come across in other SIs but that to avoid the confusion of there being too much not in this one. However, we took the decision that this guidance. The February guidance is still current, and gives us as a Government the opportunity to explain we will publish further guidance on exit. However, we the position, so we decided that we would accept the are alerting stakeholders that this guidance is on the Select Committee’s decision to make it affirmative, way and that they should prepare to notice it when it although there was always the opportunity for us to arrives. have gone back and explain that. We felt, “Why not Turning to the US whiskey and Mexican spirits make sure that everyone is completely happy?”, so we agreement, which is very important, noble Lords will decided to stand in front of your Lordships today and appreciate that that is rolling over the deal between the explain that these are administrative functions, while US and Mexico and the EU. We were able to roll over GC 323 Food and Farming Regulations 2019[25 MARCH 2019] Plant Health Regulations 2019 GC 324 the US element, so those spirits are protected in this in people’s interests. For the time being, we are setting country. It has not been possible to roll over the up frameworks to make sure that, where possible, Mexican element, but we are engaging with the Mexican everybody has the same arrangements. Government and we expect it to be rolled over very soon, so I will happily buy the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab): I just want to a tequila in due course—just one! comment on the Minister’s assurance that we will not More generally, it is worth recapping the situation see the introduction of any genetically modified crops about GIs when we leave the EU, because they are in this country that have an impact on the environment important. UK products which are recognised as EU GIs and human health. I hope that this will be borne in are on the register in the EU and should continue to mind by the Government when they read the terms have that protection automatically after exit. The only published by the Americans for future trade agreements way in which they would not have that protection is if with this country. the EU changes its rules. It is worth remembering that Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Obviously, such issues many products from third countries are on the EU list will have an impact on our future trade agreements. I of GI products, so UK products in the EU will have reiterate what I just said about our ambitions for that protection. The Government have not yet announced GM crops. We will look at the science; that is the most a decision on how non-UK GIs being sold into the important thing. UK will be treated if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal in place. The UK is not obliged I believe that I have answered all the questions. If I to protect EU GIs after exit, but EU GI holders will can add anything else later by letter, I certainly will. be able to apply for recognition in the market after exit. Motion agreed. That leads into the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about whether we are ready for this. Yes, Plant Health (Amendment) (England) we are. We have thought about and put into place our own UK GI process. We are very clear about what the (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 procedures will be. The double process in the EU will Considered in Grand Committee become a single process here in terms of the submission 4.21 pm of the application and looking for people to comment on the application. We are adding a second separate Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble level of protection in that applicants will be able to go That the Grand Committee do consider the to the First-tier Tribunal if they disagree with the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Secretary of State’s decision. So there will still be a Regulations 2019. two-stage process, but it will be slightly different from the one in the EU. We believe we have the expertise in Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Defra to do it, so we will welcome applications to the Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B) new system. TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department I thought I was going to be a little side-swiped by for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner the question on “Rum-Verschnitt” and “Slivovice”, of Kimble)(Con):MyLords,Ideclaremyfarminginterests but I think I have an answer. I do not know whether it as set out in the register. I hope that it will be helpful will make any sense to the noble Baroness,Lady Bakewell, to your Lordships if I speak also to the Plant Health but I hope it will. These amendments apply only in the (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, UK and the text does not make sense in a UK context, with which this instrument has been grouped. so we are revoking the words—these are operability amendments getting rid of unnecessary text. If I can These two regulations amend existing domestic find out any more or make that make any more sense, I legislation implementing the EU’s plant health directive will drop the noble Baroness a note. and provide the basis to maintain plant biosecurity when we leave the EU. The plant health directive is I was asked about Annexe III and why the full list implemented in England by the Plant Health (England) of GIs is not in the Explanatory Memorandum. The Order 2015 and, in relation to forestry matters, by the only US spirits we included were Tennessee whiskey Plant Health (Forestry) Order 2005, which extends to and bourbon. This enacts the roll-over agreement, Great Britain. The existing orders set out obligations which is why the full list is different from what was for the control and management of plant health risks expected. arising from the import from third countries and The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned GM crops. movement within the EU single market of plant material, This is an important issue. We will continue to take a in order to protect biosecurity. science-based approach on approving GM products It is our responsibility—particularly mine in my and will agree to the planting of GM crops only if it is role as Minister for Biosecurity—to protect biosecurity clear that people and the environment will not be across plant and animal health and the wider ecosystem. harmed. As I mentioned, no GM crops are grown in It is also important that we have a robust process of the UK and we do not foresee any approvals coming ongoing review to strengthen biosecurity protections down the track at this stage. Again, it is also worth where this is possible and necessary. The regulations re-emphasising in situations like this how closely we debated today are specifically about protecting plant work with the devolved Administrations on all devolved biosecurity.The amendments address technical deficiencies matters to ensure that there is as little divergence as and inoperability issues relating to retained EU law on possible. Too much divergence does not appear to be plant health that will otherwise arise when we leave. GC 325 Plant Health Regulations 2019[LORDS] Plant Health Regulations 2019 GC 326

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] One of the main purposes of the Plant Health I should make it clear that although businesses will (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 see some changes to import arrangements, they are is to correct technical deficiencies in our domestic risk-focused and avoid unnecessary new burdens while, legislation after exit. For example, they remove references importantly, preserving the current plant health regime’s to EU legislation and revise definitions to be UK-based overall aim of preventing and managing pest and instead of EU-based. The instrument also transposes disease threats. They do not diminish our controls in provisions in certain Council directives in relation to this important subject area but seek to protect biosecurity the control of relevant potato pests, adding to the while continuing to facilitate trade in plant material. provisions already transposed in our existing domestic The main purpose of the Plant Health (EU Exit) plant health legislation. These additional provisions Regulations 2019 is to set out the list of harmful pests mainly cover official activities that competent plant and plant material that will continue to be regulated in health authorities are required to carry out under England, Wales and Northern Ireland from exit day. these directives, such as official surveys and monitoring This is the same list of pests and plant material from for the presence of the pests. The aim is to provide the EU plant health directive, which we have transposed clarity to third countries that, following exit, the UK into our existing legislation, and includes harmful will continue to maintain the same rigorous control pests that we want to stay free from, such as xylella over the production of potatoes. fastidiosa. The instrument also sets out amendments In relation to the changes to import arrangements I to deal with technical deficiencies in retained, directly highlighted earlier,there are two aspects in this instrument. applicable EU legislation to ensure that plant health First, regulated plant material, such as ornamental legislation operates effectively. For example, it provides plants in pots intended for commercial planting and for the existing derogations to facilitate the import of certain trees and shrubs, that currently enters the specified material, such as bonsai plants from Japan, UK from the EU or Switzerland with an EU or Swiss to ensure that this trade can continue under the same plant passport will in future require a phytosanitary stringent quarantine conditions after exit. certificate. This will be issued by the official national plant protection organisation in the EU member state, Similarly, the instrument sets out the actions required or Switzerland, in line with international obligations. by UK plant health authorities in England, Wales and This applies mainly to plants for planting and will Northern Ireland to control certain pests in the event ensure that we maintain the biosecurity assurances of outbreaks. The provisions cover matters such as currently provided by the EU plant passport regime. official surveys and eradication measures that currently Regulated plant material from the EU or Switzerland apply to competent authorities under EU emergency will not be subject to routine physical checks at the legislation. For this instrument, the plant health authority border. This recognises that biosecurity risks from such is the Secretary of State in relation to England and material do not change immediately on exit. However, Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales, with delivery in we will always be vigilant about such imports and, both countries undertaken by the Animal and Plant where necessary, take additional measures to stop the Health Agency. In Northern Ireland, authority and introduction of harmful plant pests into the UK. delivery currently rests with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. For timber 4.30 pm and forest pests in England, the Forestry Commission Secondly, there are changes in how we deal with is the relevant authority. regulated plant material from non-EU third countries. Such material includes tomatoes from Morocco and In addition, plant pest and disease experts in Defra, cut flowers from Israel and Turkey, which currently the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Forestry come into England via the EU. Businesses wishing to Commission, with support from Forest Research and continue bringing in this material via the EU through Fera, will continue to work together, providing an ro-ro ports will be required to facilitate checks at exceptional capability to advise Ministers, manage approved premises inland to make sure that the material risks and control outbreaks. As part of EU exit planning, meets our plant health entry requirements prior to we have increased our capability and capacity in the their release. These new inland checks are necessary to Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is nearly maintain the biosecurity assurances currently provided doubling the number of plant health inspectors from by checks at the first point of entry into the EU, given 118 to 227. The new inspectors are currently being that EU member states will no longer be required to trained to be ready for when we leave. We continue to carry out these checks on goods in transit for the keep under review whether we need to strengthen UK after we leave. Consignments of regulated plant further our capacity in this important area of biosecurity material moving from our ro-ro ports to approved protection. inland premises will continue to be sealed—a point I Plant health is devolved. The devolved Administrations emphasise. Some 33 businesses have so far applied for have worked closely together in developing their EU exit their premises to be approved for inland checks. As I legislation to ensure a co-ordinated approach. As a stated earlier, the Animal and Plant Health Agency result, these regulations apply to England, Wales and has recruited more than 100 additional inspectors to Northern Ireland. Scottish Ministers have decided to carry out the approval process and checks at the introduce separate legislation in Scotland, and their approved premises. They will deliver their inspections equivalent legislation will give effect to UK-wide with the same rigour as they apply now. arrangements. In practice, this means that we have a The direct cost to businesses of these changes to common list of regulated pests and plant material import arrangements are expected to be low. Officials across the United Kingdom. have held discussions with key stakeholders on the GC 327 Plant Health Regulations 2019[25 MARCH 2019] Plant Health Regulations 2019 GC 328 development of our approach to this instrument and through infections and diseases.These are really important the changes to import requirements. They continue to steps we are taking. Are the premises that will need to engage businesses to support the preparations for be authorised by Defra to provide those inspection day-one changes. facilities all over the UK or based around the London This instrument also creates a UK system of plant area? It is not clear where they will be based. passports to replace the EU plant passport regime, We have a new offence in relation to non-compliance which will no longer be operable when we leave. It is with import requirements in this statutory instrument; essential to provide for a domestic plant passport I welcome the opportunity for us to prosecute serious regime to maintain existing safeguards to protect cases. Do the Government anticipate that there might biosecurity from the trade in regulated plant material be set fees for anything coming in that fails to live up in the UK. The costs to and burdens on businesses to the expected standards, or will they come later? using plant passports should not change. I turn now to the statutory instrument itself. On The other amendments are as follows. There is to be page 23, Article 22A(3) states: a new offence in relation to the new import requirements “The conditions are that—(a) the packaging in which the I just outlined. This is necessary to ensure that we can relevant material is transported and any vehicle which is used to enforce and, if necessary, prosecute serious cases of transport the material is free from soil and plant debris and any non-compliance with the new requirement. That will relevant tree pest”. apply to consignments of regulated plant material I do not know how one can fully guarantee that, even from non-EU countries that arrive through ro-ro ports if the material is wrapped and fully secure, there will via the EU and will not be inspected at the border. not be some leakage or mishap during transition. Has There will be a new offence to enforce any failure by thought been given to that? Then on page 29, in businesses or landowners to comply with pest control Part D of Schedule 13A, paragraph 11(a)(vii)(cc) refers measures specified in a statutory notice, which will to, demarcate the areas where there is a pest outbreak. “controls for the disposal of waste, soil and water, as appropriate”. This is necessary to ensure that we can enforce the The two do not seem to sit terribly well together. Why provisions covered in these instruments whereby Ministers is there different wording in different areas? It may be can demarcate an infected area and take action. These that I have missed something, but I am not quite clear regulations apply to England only. Wales, Northern and I would be grateful for clarification. Ireland and Scotland will hold separate equivalent Basically I very much welcome these regulations, legislation, as they do now. because—like other noble Lords who will take part in These instruments will ensure that an operable legal this debate—I have for many years been very conscious framework is in place for exit day and will facilitate the of the risks we run. The more plants and shrubs we flow of goods while preserving the current plant health import, the greater the risk to our native species. Also, regime’s overall aim of preventing and managing pest the climate is warming here, and therefore we may and disease threats. I beg to move. well, as we are seeing, be able to grow more vines and things, but as we import additional shrubs and other habitats into this country, the risk is even greater than Baroness Byford (Con): My Lords, I thank my before. It is just a matter of trying to make sure that noble friend for taking these two statutory instruments the system we are establishing here is strong enough together.Although they are huge,they are complementary. and has enough powers. Hence my questions on the I am also grateful to him for his explanation. As he way fees will be dealt with and on what regulations said, it is a matter of making sure that we have an there will be about the charges when people do not live operable legal framework when we leave the EU. I up to the standards we are setting in these instruments. have one or two questions. They are hugely important. I would not normally I am grateful for the detailed Explanatory speak at such great length, but I am very aware that Memorandum on the first instrument. Paragraph 2.5 while we cannot control certain things,such as wind-borne talks about “existing fees”. Will we continue with diseases, we certainly can control physical things coming those fees until at some future time they might be into our country. I want to make sure we have taken changed if that needs to be done? At the moment it enough precautions in these two statutory instruments. just states that the existing fees will continue. Paragraph 2.7 talks about the new certificates, Baroness Parminter (LD): My Lords, I thank the “issued in the country of export in accordance with International Minister for so clearly outlining the changes. If we Plant Protection Convention obligations”. enter a no-deal Brexit scenario, we will lose a fully- I was delighted to see that any imports will not be functioning system that regulates the very important stopped at the border but will be examined and looked trade in fruit, vegetables, freshly-cut flowers and timber at in great detail at the centres to which they eventually that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, is go. I understand that physical checks will not be critical to ensuring our continuing biosecurity. carried out on anything that has come through existing I have three points. First, I struggled to get a sense EU member states, and that that will continue into the from the Explanatory Memorandum of what increase future—I hope I am correct and that we get clarification in the inspection rates will be necessary as a result of on that—but anything coming in from a third country this new scenario in the event of no deal. As the that does not come through the EU will be dealt with Minister rightly said at the beginning, the majority of in a totally different way. It is hugely important that plants and fresh fruit will not have any more inspection, we control anything coming into this country. We have but all the plants and produce coming in by virtue of seen with great sadness ash and oak trees being lost the EU plant passport regime, which are not subject to GC 329 Plant Health Regulations 2019[LORDS] Plant Health Regulations 2019 GC 330

[BARONESS PARMINTER] agricultural wholesale businesses all over the country— inspection now, will be subject to inspection in future. while the lorries themselves will be sealed, if they are I was grateful for the responses that I had from the found to be bearing pests or to be a risk to our staff when I asked them that question: they made it biosecurity in some other way, they will have to be clear that we are looking at a 30% increase in the destroyed. The facilities for destroying will not be number of inspections necessary in plants, fruit and where they are; they might be wherever. cut flowers, and a 50% increase in timber. We are not I have the highest regard for what the Minister says talking about small numbers here. The figures that and for his sincerity in his commitment to ensuring they gave me are that at the moment we have about biosecurity for our country, but even though the staff 100,000 consignments per year of regulated goods, so and the Minister have said that is no additional risk on a 30% increase on those figures is not going to be biosecurity, there are concerns if we send out all these small. There will therefore be considerable on-costs to consignments to be inspected at premises around the the public purse as the Animal and Plant Health country. If they are found to be carrying pests or Agency and the Forestry Commission will have to diseases, how are they to be destroyed without spreading undertake those inspections. further the risks that they have brought in? I know The staff helpfully made it clear that at the moment that all of us in this Committee will be concerned the Forestry Commission has 10 inspectors who undertake about that issue. inspections but, if we have to go forward with this SI because of a no-deal Brexit, it will have to have increase its inspectors by 50%, which means another Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): My Lords, I five. In real terms that does not sound like a very large congratulate my noble friend on bringing these two number, but it is still of 50% more inspectors, not in instruments before the Committee this afternoon. I the London area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, am also grateful to him that Fera will be involved in rightly highlighted, but geographically spread out, so this, since he will recall that Fera is in the Thirsk and it will not just be a question of staff costs; it will mean Malton constituency. As a slightly amusing story, I resources to get them out and about in the country. remember seeing a beetle at Fera that had been extracted There will be significant on-costs to the public purse from a wooden bed. It had been quite scary for a as a result of the necessary increase in inspections if honeymoon couple to have heard its constant scratching. we leave the EU. Finally, the morning after their nuptials, they called the hotel staff in and found out that the beetle had Secondly, I would like to tease out a bit more on the been imported within the wood that the furniture was inspections that are going to take place at authorised made from. It was obviously more company than they premises in order to ensure that there are no backlogs had bargained for. I yield to no one in my admiration at the RORO points. The Explanatory Memorandum for the work that FERA does. is quite clear that the Government want to avoid that, and I think we all wish that. The Minister just said, if I I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the heard him correctly, that 35 businesses have applied to Minister. My noble friend Lady Byford referred to have authorised premises so that these inspections can plant health and pests in the air. What shocked me and take place at their facilities around the country. My colleagues on the EFRA Committee in the other place understanding from the Explanatory Memorandum in the midst of the ash tree dieback was the fact that is that 900 businesses that are presently engaged in we were exporting seeds to be sown in parts of Europe this arena. So 35 business have have applied to have such as, dare I say, Denmark—I am half Danish, so their premises authorised and there are potentially there was obviously some embarrassment—and Poland, 900 businesses that are already within this arena. which then grew these ash trees. We then reimported Again, I am grateful to the staff because when I asked them to the UK as saplings with the Chalara fungus; I them how many of those 900 businesses had premises will not even try to say its name. We were reintroducing that they thought would be suitable—not everyone is the ash tree saplings to this country with that disease. going to have premises that are—they very kindly Can my noble friend give the Committee a reassurance indicated that they thought between 75 to 100 businesses that, under the arrangements set out in the statutory would have suitable premises. So up to 100 of those instruments today, that will not happen and that we 900 businesses are potentially able to get their premises will continue to update the list of species at risk which licensed, and only 35, so far, have done so. Will the fall under these regulations on plant health and Minister say a bit more about exactly how we will ensure biosecurity? As the EU continues to amend that list, in that we do not get delays at the ports? I applaud the the event of no deal will we share the information on desire to have no backlog at the ports but, at the our list as we go forward? Will we update our list with moment, the figures do not quite seem to stack up. any updates to the EU list as well? I am sure that my noble friend will say that that is a matter for negotiation. 4.45 pm Will he please make it a priority for our negotiations? Thirdly, I add my voice to the points made by the It is obviously of some concern that the threat is noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on the biosecurity risk. not just from dieback to ash trees. Currently, horse I accept that the consignments will be in sealed lorries, chestnuts, pines and other trees are also threatened. as the Minister said. That is of course important, but Have we learned nothing from elm disease? Kew Gardens if we are sending off consignments to be inspected at and the arboretum at Castle Howard fulfil a national premises all around the country—they will go all over role in making sure that we continue to have seeds the country; we have lots of garden centres where I am which we hope will be free of these diseases. Can my in Surrey and I am sure that other noble Lords will noble friend reassure the Committee that there will have plenty in their part of the world or know of not be any threat in future? GC 331 Plant Health Regulations 2019[25 MARCH 2019] Plant Health Regulations 2019 GC 332

In the Prime Minister’s Statement in the other The regulations are indeed intended to replicate the place, there was a lot of talk about the Irish border current arrangements in Europe, but they contain some and the arrangements in Ireland. At the moment, differences and illustrate some serious issues. First, as there is no Northern Ireland Assembly. We understand has already been noted, they move the line of defence that this issue was raised for the first time two weeks against the risk of the importation of disease from the ago by the Minister’s Defra colleague in the other port to the importer’s premises in the case of regulated place, particularly in respect of the arrangements for material from third countries. The new process means his department. There are going to be no checks at the that the premises of these importers of regulated borders on plant health, but they will be, as it states, in plants and trees will have to have their process authorised some internal location. Is this entirely sensible when and provide specific inspection facilities, which will we are dealing with something as fundamental as then be subjected to a yearly audit. As the noble plant health and biosecurity? If there is an alert for a Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, Defra has estimated particular plant disease, should we not reimpose checks that between 80 and 100 premises may want to be at borders for this purpose to make sure that we keep authorised, but authorisations opened before Christmas the national biosecurity safe? and only 33 have gone through the process so far. In the smaller regulation as I shall call it—the Plant There is a way to go in achieving readiness. Can the Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulation— Minister tell us what his department is doing to ensure paragraph 2.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum sets that all those who need to be designated will be out obligations, designated in time, whenever “in time” might mean? “for the control and management of plant health risks”, I must admit that I was concerned that, in the for the import of plant material from third countries interests of not gumming up the ro-ro ports and and the movement of such material, creating friction in the trade process, we would no “within the EU single market”. longer stop and check these materials at ports. I was assured by the Defra chief plant health officer that the Given that our position will be that of a third country, plants and trees concerned would be transported in can we clarify what the status will be for plant movements bonded conditions so that the disease could not be between here and the EU? spread in transit before they had been checked. Can On page 21 of the SI, Regulation 19 refers to, the Minister assure us that such bonding or sealing “Prevention of the spread of tree pests: England”. provisions, as he called them, will work so that there is Again, can we ensure that there will not just be plant no risk of trailing pestilence across the country in the passports, as it goes on to say, but physical checks, if interest of simply avoiding embarrassing queues at the there is reason to believe that there is a specific threat? post-Brexit ports? At the moment, we know of threats to three particular Once the plants and materials are held in authorised tree species. We need to be careful and to understand premises, they will need to be inspected by the Animal what our status will be in relation to the EU if we and Plant Health Agency before they can be moved crash out and leave with no deal. and distributed. As has already been noted, that will I hope that we can give these instruments a fair require more staff, including additional plant health wind, but both instruments raise a number of issues of inspectors. Support staff will also be needed to manage potential concern to the biosecurity and plant health the uplift in the number of phytosanitary certificates of this country. required to ensure that exports from the UK to the EU can be handled. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to that. Defra kindly provided us with figures Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab): My Lords, as showing that an additional 117 plant health inspectors several noble Lords have pointed out, plant health is a and support staff, and an additional five Forestry vital issue. I declare an interest as chairman of the Commission inspectors, will be recruited. This is a Woodland Trust. virtual doubling of the workforce. Can the Minister Pressure from introduced diseases and pests is serious tell us the estimated cost of this new regime? It sounds and growing. Already there has been reference to the expensive. Simply doing some sums on the back of a publicity surrounding ash dieback, which could kill fag packet indicated that the staff alone could cost off 80% of our ash trees and change the nature of our upwards of £3 million. The public are wholly unaware countryside and hedgerows. I am sure that noble Lords— of these sorts of costs when making their minds up particularly those of my age—will recall the devastation about the value,or otherwise,of Brexit and its variants—so from Dutch elm disease. “You haven’t seen anything much for the Brexit dividend. yet”, because poised and waiting to come over are Of course, we are only one country, even if we are killers such as xylella fastidiosa, to which the Minister four nations. Much depends on effective arrangements referred. This is a Darth Vader of plant disease. It being in place—particularly in Scotland, which will could infect a whole range of species of plant and subject to separate legislation. Can the Minister tell us trees. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked whether that legislation has been passed in Scotland about three species that are under threat. In reality, it and, if not, when it will be passed? is pretty well true to say that every native tree species is at risk of pest or disease. So plant health needs to be The Minister referred to a new criminal offence taken very seriously. I thank the Minister for his being created to provide an enforcement mechanism explanation of these two regulations and for the briefing in the event of failure to comply with a notice issued in meeting he set up with himself and senior Defra respect of a demarcated area. Your Lordships will officials. remember that the House expressed concern about the GC 333 Plant Health Regulations 2019[LORDS] Plant Health Regulations 2019 GC 334

[BARONESS YOUNG OF OLD SCONE] On the issue of bonding and sealed, or whatever word creation of criminal offences by statutory instruments may be used, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, during consideration of the then EU withdrawal Bill. that I was absolutely clear in the early stages of this While this new criminal offence does not count as a situation that I too wanted reassurances. I am well aware relevant criminal offence under the Act, can the Minister that pests may arrive at a port and we may find them confirm the maximum penalty for the offence? going all around the country because we have done Of course, the new regime deals only with legitimate something utterly stupid. I was assured, and I will go trade, although the Minister is of the view that it will into further detail on the assessments, about why this provide more information for traceability should an was a sound and sensible thing for us to do. outbreak take place. The Minister assures me that the I will go through the points in no particular order. Animal and Plant Health Agency is hot on the tracks My noble friend Lady Byford asked about existing of any illegal imports, and I assure the Minister that fees and any changes. Existing fees will apply to these the agency is regularly under-cover as a mystery shopper import inspections at inland premises, so we will follow at car boot sales in car parks. the existing fee arrangements. These SIs basically recreate a slightly less satisfactory UK regime to replace the existing EU regime for plant The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about health. At heart, this is a lipstick-on-a-pig situation—you the estimated number of consignments and inspections. can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. The scale I want to be clear that by inspection we would mean and threat of plant and tree disease is increasing. In physical inspection of a consignment of plant material, general terms, the Government’s policy for all but rather than simply checks of the documents associated regulated materials is of surveillance to spot infestations with it. In a no-deal scenario the majority of plants early once introduced to this country and contain and plant products imported from the EU, including them with vigour. This does not keep out pests and fruit, vegetables and cut flowers, will continue to enter diseases and is insufficiently robust to tackle the current the UK freely without physical inspections, as currently. and future threat. Brexit has few merits in my book, Those goods managed under the EU plant passport but one of them would come into play in this instance: regime, such as certain species for planting and shrubs, as part of reclaiming our borders, we would have a will require an internationally recognised phytosanitary chance to do a New Zealand or an Australia and certificate. There will be no physical inspection of the adopt a policy of no entry for any plants and trees goods at the border, although our risk-based inland unless they are demonstrably disease and pest free. If surveillance system will continue. A documentary and that were in conjunction with a major push for plants identity check will take place remotely,without requiring to be UK sourced and grown, to reduce the need for that goods are stopped either at the border or inland imports and to give a valuable boost to the UK nursery awaiting checks. The importer will be required to trade, that would genuinely be in the spirit of Brexit—I pre-notify the Animal and Plant Health Agency about never thought that I would use those words. details of a consignment of regulated plant material. At this stage we are, in a sense, keeping what we have I look forward to discussions with the Minister on for certain regulated plants from within the EU—in how we can improve the plant health regime in the other words, the phytosanitary certificate. context of the forthcoming biosecurity strategy. The important area—if the Committee does not 5 pm mind my setting this out, because it is terribly important Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I thank all to establish the sequence—is that material originating noble Baronesses who have contributed to this debate. in third countries that enters the UK via the EU I suspect that we are united in every particular of the without being checked in the EU will require a physical essentials. I stress again that as the Minister with inspection in the UK, in the same way as we currently biosecurity in his remit, I could not place a higher physically inspect material coming directly from third importance on keeping our country safe from pests, countries. So whether or not the material enters the disease and invasive non-native species, all of which UK at the ro-ro ports, we will inspect the goods cause immense damage to our natural ecosystems. at trade premises inland that have been authorised in line with biosecurity requirements. At this stage we do As a farmer in the Vale of Aylesbury I was very not have data on the current number of plants and scarred myself, as a boy, by the loss of all the elm trees plant products entering the UK from third countries on the farm. Now, having planted ash trees over via the EU which will require an inspection, but we the years and seeing them depleted, no one could be estimate that there will be around 14,500 consignments unhappier about that situation. However, in 2012, when per year. it materialised that all sorts of extraordinary things were happening, whereby ash seeds—I think it was My noble friend Lady Byford asked about the location even small saplings as well—were going to other parts of inland premises. They are located across the United of the EU to come back and bring Chalara with them, Kingdom. We do not have to hand the exact locations that precipitated a change in Defra and an understanding of the 33 premises currently being organised but I can that, while animal health had rightly been given a very provide that information in due course. I should say, considerable priority, plant health needed to buck up and this issue arose in another connection, that a lot and become as rigorous and as sharp. I could mention of the current facilities are around Heathrow because many names, but the appointment of the chief plant obviously a lot of the plants from third countries health officer, Professor Nicola Spence, was one come in there. I know that there have previously been repercussion of an understanding that we needed to considerations about the fact that it is London-centric; do a lot better. that is because often the bulk of plant material from GC 335 Plant Health Regulations 2019[25 MARCH 2019] Plant Health Regulations 2019 GC 336 third countries has come in that way. I have been to the In the past we have introduced precautionary national excellent inspection unit alongside Heathrow, where measures to protect the UK against threats. For example, so much of the biosecurity protection takes place with the UK produced stronger national legislation against imports directly from third countries. xylella in response to the situation elsewhere in the EU. We have also introduced national legislation to My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, protect against oak processionary moth. In fact, during asked about the costs. It is the Government’s policy to my early months in this post I am afraid that I made charge fees for many publicly-provided goods and myself unpopular with our very nice Spanish friends services. The standard approach is to set fees to recover when dealing with the Epitrix potato pest by requiring the full cost of service delivery. This relieves the general further washing because we were concerned about the taxpayer of the costs so that they are properly borne arrival of unwashed new potatoes at certain times. by users who benefit from the service. Charging for Moreover, of course we will work with the devolved plant health services is consistent with the principle Administrations to ensure there is protection across that businesses using these services should bear the the United Kingdom. cost. The costs incurred in any 12-month period are recovered by fees levied in the following 12 months. I turn to the question of Northern Ireland. As we For example, fees for 2019-20 will be based on the have discussed in a number of debates, the island of costs incurred in providing services for the period Ireland is an epidemiological entity for obvious reasons. from April 2018 to March 2019. In fact, when we looked at aquaculture, we found that there are fewer fish pests in the island of Ireland than My noble friend Lady Byford and, I think, the there are in Great Britain. It is terribly important that noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised transporting, the all-Ireland concept is seen in that context because moving inland and the biosecurity risk. As I have said, pests and diseases are not respecters of borders. It is experts both from the APHA and within Defra have intended that a similar SI will be made for Northern made it clear that in their assessment, under the Ireland. The specific legislation will align with our containerised, sealed and bonded arrangements, these own legislation to ensure a consistent approach to materials will be secure until they are inspected. plant health. It will be laid before day one.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about Lord Deben (Con): Can my noble friend explain the volume of the imports from the EU that would be how we will keep that legislation in line with what subject to the new process. We estimate that around happens in the south? 0.75 million tonnes of regulated plant products from the EU, out of around 7 million tonnes of total annual Lord Gardiner of Kimble: As I said to my noble friend, imports, will require a phytosanitary certificate. On the whole point in raising the single entity is that is the question that she also raised on concerns about why it is so important that there is close co-operation. blockages at points of entry, we are seeking to do this If my noble friend had seen our earlier consideration because the paramount concern is that we keep the of Northern Ireland matters, he would have heard country biosecure. Clearly,though, where inland premises about the very strong relationship between bodies in have been inspected and are both suitable to the the north and the south on almost the whole of the inspectors and secure, we have been advised that there natural ecosystem area. That is tremendously important. is no biosecurity risk from that. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about changes I want to respond to another point raised by the to the list of regulated pests. A plant health risk noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. She asked about the register is publicly available and I am afraid to say that dangers of spreading pests. It is clear that we must ensure currently we have 1,000 pests recorded on it. That that that does not happen; that is the whole point of somewhat bears out what the noble Baroness,Lady Young, our carrying on with the EU system of requiring said. I have regular meetings with Grown in Britain, pre-notification with phytosanitary certificates for certain and which side of the argument on the European EU plant products. That is an important pre-notification Union one might be on is, frankly, irrelevant. We need system to enable APHA to be aware of arrivals.Moreover, to be more biosecure within the United Kingdom. We part of the regime is that random checks are made of all need to be more biosecure around the world because plant materials. We place the greatest importance on our laxity in these matters has already caused enormous this area. problems around the world and we need to attend to it. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the risks. She talked about ash dieback; the outbreak has 5.15 pm precipitated an enormous amount of research—here I Professor Nicola Spence and I have regular meetings: am moving away slightly from the statutory instrument sometimes gloomy ones about the arrival of, for example, before us. Research now being undertaken into tree the spruce beetle in a wood in Kent. We think it health is remarkable for both its public and private probably travelled across our waters. All that has funding, through universities. The John Innes Centre immense implications when we go to Scotland, where has undertaken research into the genome of the ash spruce is really important. We are working extremely tree which gives us hope that perhaps 15% to 20% of hard on measures to contain the spruce beetle; it is too the trees may have some tolerance. We can ensure the early for me to say that they have been a success, but future of the ash tree from them. This is an important initial findings from our work are bearing fruit. We area and we will work with evidence to develop a must keep all these matters under regular and constant risk-based, proportionate approach to plant health review. I assure the Committee that I place the utmost measures. importance on that. GC 337 Plant Health Regulations 2019[LORDS] Plant Health Regulation 2019 GC 338

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] The noble Baroness asked about Scotland. By chance, My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned import I met Mairi Gougeon, the Scottish Biosecurity Minister, inspections and inland monitoring. Wealready undertake along with Lesley Griffiths from Wales only about three systematic inspections of regulated goods at ports and hours ago as they were in for other meetings at Defra. I airports. This will not change. In future, we will carry requested that the three of us meet, perhaps when this out our own checks of regulated material being imported particular hiatus is over, so that we can work positively from such countries via the EU. I have mentioned that together. For Scotland, the Plant Health (EU Exit) the risk assessment on the change to inland was done (Scotland) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019 were by our technical experts in APHA and Defra, who laid in draft on 13 March and were debated and passed consider that it does not pose a change of risk. That is scrutinyunchallengedon14March,whilesimilarregulations why we have the inspectors; they need to be in a for Wales were laid in draft on 19 February. position to see what is happening. I am going to have a close look at Hansard regarding The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the other points. My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned additional costs. The cost of the additional plant health climate change. Obviously, this is an area where we inspectors required in a no-deal scenario to facilitate all need to work collaboratively across the world. inland checks is covered in the additional £7.4 million Because of climate change, plant diseases and pests that the Animal and Plant Health Agency has been have, in my view, become much more alarming. The allocated for 2018-19. It is also to support Defra’s issue of physical and windborne is absolutely the wide-ranging and ambitious portfolio of preparations case. I am afraid that we would have got Chalara even for exit. I work with the Animal and Plant Health if we had not done the unwise things that we did Agency and it has strong expertise. because, as my noble friend Lord Deben and others will know, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and such eastern Baroness Byford: I thank my noble friend for clarifying counties are suffering because of it being airborne. the extra money that has been allocated. Will that That leads to a much wider issue: whatever our money be clawed back from importers and people arrangements with our friends in the EU 27, this is an who are buying the products, or will the Government area where we all have to collaborate. I am afraid the put the money up and make no attempt to get challenge that I would put back to Europe in this area recompense? I thought from the conversations we had is that a lot of things are coming here because when earlier that there would be a charge. they arrived in Europe, there has not been zero tolerance. I mention the oak processionary moth and the Asian Lord Gardiner of Kimble: The fees are for the costs hornet as examples of where arrivals in Europe have of inspection or whatever. The additional costs for not been dealt with, so we are having to seek to deal people will partly be borne by the Exchequer. I think I with them here. We do not have enough sea to match had better have complete clarification on that. As far the ambition of New Zealand or Australia; it is only as I am concerned, the fees cover the cost of inspections 22 miles wide. We all need to do very much more. and we will have to upscale them. It might be helpful if On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that £7.4 million is allocated in a way that my noble about the maximum penalty, I might not have a note friend and other noble Lords can appreciate, so that from the Box but I think the fine is limitless. All I can we get it right and I get it on the record right. say is that if someone transgresses, I hope the fine is ThenobleBaronesses,LadyYoungandLadyParminter, substantial because the disasters that can befall our mentioned the 33 premises. There are obviously other country due to these pests and diseases is very grave. I businesses. Officials are engaging with export businesses will study Hansard. I will write if there are embellishments and encouraging applications. We look forward to or further details that I can supply. being helpful because it is important that these premises are inspected, secure and fit for purpose. Then we can help to ensure that these products come to the inland Motion agreed. premises as swiftly as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about future plans. The policies in regulations are risk-based and proportionate, and will apply temporarily from day Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 one until we develop our future plant health regime. This will include consideration of the extent to which Considered in Grand Committee we implement aspects of revived arrangements to be introduced in the EU from December 2019 through its new regulations on plant health and official controls, 5.23 pm given their significant influence in shaping these new arrangements. Clearly what we in this country want to Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble do is to have the highest possible standards of biosecurity. We will be looking at the advantage of available That the Grand Committee do consider the Plant technologies to facilitate trade that is as frictionless as Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. possible, but the paramount importance is to have Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary high standards of biosecurity. Defra and the Food Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B). Standards Agency are working closely together to develop proposals for this and plan to consult on them this year. Motion agreed. GC 339 Criminal Justice Regulations 2019[25 MARCH 2019] Criminal Justice Regulations 2019 GC 340

Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU The purpose of this instrument is to address the Exit) Regulations 2019 changes necessary in domestic law upon our exit, in the event that we exit without a deal. I will not go into Considered in Grand Committee the detail of what the SI does for each EU measure or tool—I hope that the regulations themselves, the 5.24 pm Explanatory Memorandum and the provisional impact Moved by Lord Keen of Elie assessment are already clear on that—but I will briefly draw attention to the main points and to what occurs That the Grand Committee do consider the in the event that we leave without a deal. Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) For the victims of crime compensation directive, Regulations 2019. the instrument will revoke the implementing legislation relating to mutual assistance since it provides a system The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) of intra-EU member state co-operation that will not (Con): My Lords, these regulations form part of the be present in a no-deal scenario. I emphasise that the Government’s ongoing work to ensure that there are regulations do not impact on our national compensation functioning domestic laws in the event that the United scheme; that will continue. Kingdom leaves the European Union without a deal. For the European protection order directive, the They relate solely to the Government’s no-deal exit instrument will revoke the implementing legislation since preparations. Should Parliament approve the withdrawal the scheme can operate only between EU member agreement, which incorporates an implementation period, states, and in this scenario the United Kingdom will and pass the legislation necessary to implement that not be one.Wetake the opportunity of these regulations to agreement, the commencement of these regulations make transitional provision to ensure that any order would be deferred until completion of the implementation made consequent to an incoming request received prior period. to exit will continue to be enforceable until its conclusion, The regulations amend or revoke legislation relating whenever that is, so that persons will remain protected. to five EU measures; first, the victims of crime I should add that this system is seldom used. My compensation directive. That directive established that understanding is that only four orders have been made each EU member state should have a national scheme by the courts of England and Wales in respect of such to provide compensation to victims of violent intentional protection orders since it came into operation, while crime. It also provided for liaison between the relevant only six applications have been received from EU authorities of each member state to facilitate the member states. That is over a period of three years. compensation of victims. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority manages the compensation 5.30 pm scheme for England, Wales and Scotland. Northern With regard to the European supervision order Ireland has a separate scheme; however, the Criminal framework decision, the regulations will revoke the Injuries Compensation Authority is the assisting authority implementing legislation. Again, this system can operate for the whole of the United Kingdom and liaises with only between EU member states and when we cease to other member states to help victims apply for be a member state, it will be inoperable. This scheme compensation from them. has also been seldom used, as noted in the Explanatory The second matter is the European protection orders. Memorandum and impact assessment. I can update The directive provides a framework to allow certain the figures: I think there is a reference to a total of kinds of protection order made in criminal proceedings four applications having been received, but since the in one member state to be transferred to another EU regulation was lodged there have been a further six. member state where it can be recognised and enforced. That makes a total of 10 applications in the four years Thirdly, there are the European supervision orders. since the framework directive was implemented. The These enable the transfer of certain supervision measures numbers are obviously very small. between EU member states. For example, bail granted With regard to the mutual recognition of financial subject to conditions issued in criminal proceedings in penalties framework decision, the regulations revoke one member state can be transferred to another EU the implementing legislation, again because mutual member state to be recognised and supervised there. recognition and enforcement is between member states Fourthly,the mutual recognition of financial penalties alone. There is a transitional provision to allow domestic provided a framework so that certain financial penalties enforcement to continue to finalisation in respect of imposed in criminal proceedings in one member state any request that was received prior to exit. can be forwarded to another EU member state for Finally, I refer to the taking account of convictions enforcement. framework decision. The regulations will amend the Fifthly and finally is the matter of taking account implementing legislation to provide that for proceedings of convictions in EU member states in the course of which commence post exit, individuals with prior new criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom. convictions from EU member states will be treated the This requires known prior convictions in another EU same as individuals with any other non-UK prior member state to be taken into account—for example, conviction. There are again transitional provisions in when passing sentence—to the extent that national place providing that the current rules will apply for law requires national convictions to be taken into cases ongoing at the time of exit. account. This means that, upon sentencing, the court The impacts of these changes on citizens, businesses in any member state can treat convictions from another and the public and voluntary sectors are regarded as member state exactly as they would domestic convictions. minimal. An impact assessment was placed in the Libraries GC 341 Criminal Justice Regulations 2019[LORDS] Criminal Justice Regulations 2019 GC 342

[LORD KEEN OF ELIE] That cannot be true if, for example, this information is of both Houses ahead of this debate. In the event of a not available; the noble and learned Lord made the no-deal scenario we would see created deficiencies in point a moment ago that that will have a considerable the domestic legislation implementing these five EU impact on individuals. tools which the Ministry of Justice is responsible for if The point I really want to make to the Minister is we left the legislation unchanged. Anyone involved in that this is another example of trying to deal with a live matter at that point or considering the options Alice in Wonderland. The idea that we would seriously afterwards would therefore be unsure what legal not give the information we have to the rest of the framework applies to their circumstances.The deficiencies European Union, nor hope that they would give us I refer to flow in part from the simple fact that in a that information, seems outwith any kind of sense. I no-deal scenario, the United Kingdom would no longer am perfectly prepared to accept that we will have to be an EU member state. As I indicated, these European pass these regulations—because, no doubt, if that Union tools are constructed to be operated by and situation arose when we are not a member of the between EU member states. Four of the five regulations European Union, many of these provisions would not that I have addressed require reciprocity between the function in any case—but I wish that Ministers would UK as a member state and other member states of the just admit every time that it is much better to have a European Union to operate. Of course, that reciprocity system in which you share than not. We are all fixated will not be present if we have a no-deal exit. by the lunacy of the whole business of Brexit but that The purpose of the regulations themselves is simply does not mean that a little humility from Ministers to promote as orderly a withdrawal as is possible in would not be welcome. They could say, “We are sorry such circumstances and to provide a degree of certainty to be in this position because it makes things very for those who need to navigate the criminal justice much worse”, instead of pretending that everything landscape in a no-deal scenario. In addition, they will be the same, that we will just fix things, that provide clarity for anyone considering these matters in everything is perfectly okay and that if we have a the EU context. In these circumstances, I commend no-deal situation, this will just go ahead. That flies in the regulations to the Committee. the face of the truth. Every time we discuss these statutory instruments, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB): I thank the Minister we increasingly recognise what a nonsense the whole for his clear introduction of this instrument. It seems proposition is. I just want to hear that occasionally to be an inevitable consequence of a no-deal scenario from the Government. They do not seem satisfactorily but one of its provisions is of great importance: the engaged in trying to solve the problem anyway, but it taking into account of previous convictions. A lot of would be nice to hear an occasional ministerial comment work was done to try to improve the system across the that they are sorry to have to put this forward because EU for recording in a standard form the information it is obviously not a sensible situation or better than in relation to previous convictions, which are of what we have at the moment. considerable importance in the court deciding what to do. Is the Minister able to say what arrangements are Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD): My Lords, the being made so that there continues to be the fullest regulations deal with the current situation of mutual co-operation on obtaining information about those assistance, not just the passing of information from convicted in member states? This is obviously particularly one country to another. That is what we are concerned important in cases dealing with paedophiles and other with. violent offenders, as the courts here would want to The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of take into account all details of prior convictions to Cwmgiedd, referred to taking account of convictions. ensure that appropriate penalties were passed. If that As he explained, a lot of work has been done to make information was not available, it would obviously be sure that convictions are presented mutually in an of some considerable detriment to the safety of the agreed format, which assists a sentencing judge greatly. general public. The regulations—particularly in Part 6, entitled “Taking account of convictions”—provide that all individuals Lord Deben (Con): My Lords, I want to make a with prior convictions from outside the UK, whether couple of points that I have made on previous occasions. from the EU or non-EU countries, are treated the I am always unhappy about things that deal with the same. Clearly, as the noble and learned Lord pointed law being discussed only by lawyers. It seems to me out, there is a developed system of mutual assistance that non-lawyers should sometimes refer to the matters relating to convictions. I would be grateful if the in front of us. Minister could explain the difference between the system I heard the Minister say, kindly, that we now have developed between EU member states and that developed the impact assessment. I am always fascinated by how with non-EU states “outside the UK”. Those are the the Government can say that they do not intend to words used in the impact assessment. What difference provide guidance because a measure relates mainly to in standards can we expect between the two systems? technical changes before they have produced the impact Perhaps I may turn first to compensation for victims assessment. That seems like a decision before the fact. of crime. A significant change has been made because, It is also interesting that the Explanatory Memorandum at the moment, there is an obligation on EU member states: states not simply to offer advice but to co-operate in “No, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or providing access to their compensation schemes. It is public sector is foreseen … The impact of this instrument, including proposed that that system should go and the Criminal on individuals, is negligible”. Injuries Compensation Authority will simply offer GC 343 Criminal Justice Regulations 2019[25 MARCH 2019] Criminal Justice Regulations 2019 GC 344 advice instead. We know from the impact assessment exiting the European Union without a deal. It would that, for example, it is not known at the moment how be a disaster in all sorts of areas—trade and other many British nationals have applied for compensation aspects of co-operation—but in the context of criminal from EU compensation schemes because victims can justice co-operation, we all ought to acknowledge that apply directly.I am anxious to know whether the Minister the idea of no deal is particularly disastrous and can enlighten us about the nature of the advice that dangerous for people in this country and in the European will be given to people injured as a result of criminal Union, especially for victims of violent crime and activity abroad as compared with the mutual assistance survivors of domestic abuse. given under the current scheme. It seems that there Having said that at the outset, I invite the noble and could be a very considerable difference between the learned Lord the Minister to agree and to do his best two situations. The Explanatory Memorandum states with particular questions about the various areas of that there is currently, policy and co-operation covered here. We acknowledge “a system of formal communication between the relevant authorities”. that it is not about the instrument. We are in an That will go, so what is the advice? If an injured person unenviable position. The clock is ticking down and we happens to learn about the scheme covering the offer seem to be no closer to a final scheme for what of advice from the Criminal Injuries Compensation criminal justice co-operation will be. The problem is Authority, presumably he or she will have to take the that the political declaration is vague on matters of initiative of approaching the CICA to obtain it. security and justice co-operation. As we have heard I turn to mutual assistance. Of course, EU protection from noble Lords, access to Europol and European orders and supervision systems have not been used criminal records is essential, as is access to the extensive considerably, as the memorandum makes clear. These database system. Perhaps we can all agree on this. I am are important possibilities that no doubt could have sure that, in due course, the Minister will do so as well been developed more than they have. For example, if a and he will suggest that this instrument and its provisions person has engaged in violent conduct towards their are not an ideal alternative to having a proper scheme spouse in a European country and the spouse has for co-operation after Brexit. taken out a protection order, there is great value in If the Minister is able to do so, I wonder if he might that being enforced in this country as well without any discuss what the total cost to the UK authorities might further proceedings.However,according to the regulations be from not having, for example, access to the system before us,it seems that separate and additional applications of formal communication in relation to compensation for protection will have to be made to the British for victims of violent crime. The Explanatory courts. Memorandum makes a lot of store about the total It is a similar case as regards supervision orders. If number of requests in each relevant case. Can he assist a person found guilty of criminal conduct abroad to on the total amount of compensation that has resulted the effect that a supervision order has been made in the past three years in relation to this request? against him moves to this country, unless there is a Thare might give more of a sense of the importance separate and additional application to a British court, and severity of the matters we are dealing with. the protection against him that a supervision order In relation to European protection orders, provides will no longer exist. paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states, The mutual recognition of financial penalties is “the UK will no longer be able to issue requests to other EU another important area. Currently, a fine imposed in Member States and expect them to be acted upon”. one EU country can be enforced in another. What This is predominantly about domestic violence. Can mechanism does the Ministry have in mind following the Minister confirm that this change could make life the implementation of this instrument—should that less safe for the survivors of domestic abuse after exit ever come about, which seems highly unlikely—for day? Could the Minister perhaps articulate how travel recovering financial penalties imposed in another EU restrictions would be placed on the perpetrators of country? How will that compare with the recovery of domestic abuse in such a scenario—for example, on a financial penalties from non-EU countries at present? man who is an EU citizen with a woman victim who is Although these regulations appear complicated and a UK citizen—without an EPO? Similarly, on financial technical, there is an important principle of mutual penalties, does the Minister have any idea what the assistance involved. Among EU members, we have potential cost would be to the UK authorities for built up systems that protect the people of this country. losing access to the framework? These are all to be swept away and replaced by separate In all this, I am making the point that it is not really applications and so on. This seems an undesirable fair to impugn the instrument itself but, as there are outcome that has not been given the publicity it deserves. people beyond this Room who are still advocating a no-deal Brexit, it is none the less important to try to 5.45 pm get the Minister’s thoughts on some of these matters. Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab): My Lords, in all sorts of matters, particularly perhaps in matters Brexit, it is Lord Keen of Elie: I am obliged to noble Lords for not as fashionable as we might like either to be succinct their contributions. I begin by observing that my noble or fair to one’s opponents. So as not to exacerbate the friend Lord Deben has misunderstood the purpose of Alice in Wonderland world described by noble Lords, these regulations. They are not concerned with the I would say that the Minister is in an unenviable transfer of data or information or with access to it; situation. Surely we all know that the problems are not they are concerned with what the courts do with it with this draft instrument but with any possibility of once they have it. I will elaborate on that in a moment. GC 345 Criminal Justice Regulations 2019[LORDS] Criminal Justice Regulations 2019 GC 346

[LORD KEEN OF ELIE] Turning to the European protection order and the In light of the observations that have been made, point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and it is simply not possible to operate that scheme if we Lord Thomas—this is a bit like a rugby commentary leave without a deal because under the terms of the featuring Joneses, but I will not go there—and the relevant provision only the court of a member state noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I shall take each of can make a request and under the scheme it can make the five relevant regulations’ directives in turn, pick up a request only to the court of another EU member each of the points that have been raised and then come state. In the event that we receive an application before back to the issue of data and how that is being exit, we will process it because it will have been competently addressed. made by the other member state and we will be receiving it at a time when we are a member state, but after exit The first is the victims of crime compensation we cannot make such orders because they will not be directive. Let us be clear: in the event of a no-deal accepted as competent by the EU 27 states, and we exit—I am not seeking or advocating that; I am dealing cannot expect to receive any because they cannot with the situation that arises in that eventuality, as the competently make such a request of the United Kingdom noble Baroness observed—any EU citizen who is the once it ceases to be a member state. To put this into victim of a violent crime in the UK will still be able to context, I should emphasise that this order is very proceed to make an application under the UK scheme rarely used. Four EPOs have been issued by the English in respect of a violent criminal act in the UK. Conversely, and Welsh courts and the Northern Ireland authorities even though we no longer have the relevant directive in since this provision was implemented in 2015, and place, where a UK citizen suffers such an act in a only two of those were recognised by the receiving member state that has ratified the European Convention EU state over a period of four years. In the same on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, period, six EPOs were received by the courts from which is the preceding European Council convention, other member states of which four were recognised they will also be able to access compensation, and and two were declined, so we are talking about tiny there are 18 EU members that are signatories to that numbers in this context. convention. In addition, there are some member states On the European supervision order, I would, with that are not signatories to the convention but whose respect, seek to correct the noble Lord, Lord Thomas criminal compensation schemes admit of applications of Gresford. The supervision order is directed to just like the UK’s for any citizen who suffers that pre-criminal trial matters such as bail. It does not violent criminal conduct within their country. There apply to any post-criminal trial order of the court. are at least two which fall into that category; I believe The reference to supervision is perhaps a little misleading that they are Ireland and Latvia. There are in fact a in that context. It deals essentially with a situation in total of 20 existing EU member states where it will be which somebody is placed on bail under bail conditions possible to continue applying for compensation under and the relevant supervision order can be enforced in these schemes. another EU member state with the result that a citizen of an EU member state who is subject to bail may To follow up the point from the noble Lord, move into another EU member state without breaching Lord Thomas of Gresford, the intention is that the the relevant conditions of their bail order. That is CICA will support victims in accessing compensation essentially what it deals with. It has again been very from those countries where an application can be rarely used since implementation in 2015. The number made—in other words, it will do essentially what it we had received at the time the regulations were laid does at present, which is to assist the victim in directing was four since 2015. Interestingly, a further six have how and where the application should be made in the emerged since the regulations were laid, I think five of circumstances. I readily accept that that is not a complete which have come from Cyprus. I do not know whether answer to the existing scheme; it is deficient to the they all pertain to the same group, but the numbers are extent that at least seven existing EU member states very small. In turn, the courts in England and Wales will not facilitate such an application. That said, it is have issued two such supervision orders, but neither is important to put this into context. As the noble Lord, extant. They have both expired because the relevant Lord Thomas, observed, not every application has parties have been discharged or have gone through the been notified to the CICA in the UK. In so far as it is criminal trial process. We do not anticipate that this notified, though, we are aware that in the past year, will have any major impact. 2017-2018 to the end of February, there were 59 requests for assistance, 29 notified unsuccessful applications The financial penalties order came into force in 2012, and only two notified successful applications. I readily since which time we have received about 3,759 requests accede that not all those who made an application for enforcement of civil penalties, most of them from notified that fact and not all those who made a successful the Netherlands, and we have issued about 3,400 requests application notified that, so the data is limited. As a for the recovery of financial penalties, most of them to consequence we do not know the sums that were Poland. awarded in these cases because there is no requirement We have one point to bear in mind. Where we issue for notification. It is a limited compass and what will a request for a financial penalty to be recovered, we do be in its place is not as good as what exists at present. not get the money. It is retained by the EU member Nobody is pretending otherwise, but it is appropriate state that makes the recovery. To that extent we do not that we put the statute book into proper form in order get a financial benefit, but where we do benefit is in that people are not confused when they come to the event that we are requested to recover a financial determine what their rights are in this context. penalty; we can then retain it. The sums involved are GC 347 Criminal Justice Regulations 2019 [25 MARCH 2019] Law Applicable to GC 348 relatively modest. The average fine is in the region of can address the matter. The information flows will £300 based on figures collected in 2015. If that is remain and travel under the mutual legal assistance applied to the number of requests we are getting, we convention of the European Council. are still talking about a sum of approximately £100,000. I come now to the purpose of the regulation itself. However,I emphasise that these estimates are approximate. Under the existing European directive, the courts are As I say, it is not a case of us recovering the money bound to take account of a previous conviction in that has been imposed by a UK court for reasons best another member state. That is implemented by way of known to the European authorities, I am sure; rather, Section 143(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In the the proceeds go to the jurisdiction that actually recovers event that we are looking at convictions that occurred the funds in the event that they do so. in a non-EU member state, the courts have a discretion to have regard to that previous conviction pursuant to 6 pm Section 143(5) of the 2003 Act. The point that this Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd: On the Minister’s last regulation addresses is that, if we cease to be an EU point, the ability of a court to fine someone who is member, we are no longer tied into the scheme for here knowing that it will be enforced of course means EU member states pursuant to Section 143(2) of the that the court considers that a financial penalty might 2003 Act, but of course we will remain in a position to be more desirable than the imposition of a short term deal with this as a discretionary matter, as we would of imprisonment. Bearing in mind the desire to get rid with other third-party countries. of or reduce the number of short terms in prison, has The point of this regulation is simply that there is anyone looked at the impact that imposing fines that no logical reason for treating one set of third-party we know will not be enforced will have on the policy of countries differently from another set: that is why the trying to reduce short terms of imprisonment? regulation brings the position with the EU 27 states into line in the event that we leave without a deal. That Lord Keen of Elie: I do not believe that any distinct is what we are seeking to address, but I underline the analysis has been made of that issue, but the noble and point I made in my opening speech that this regulation learned Lord will be well aware that the problem of is not to do with the transfer of data or access to recovering financial penalties is hardly limited to people information but with how the courts deal with it once who have gone to Poland or the Netherlands. There is they actually have that data or information. I hope a far more fundamental problem with recovering financial that that covers all the points that have been raised by penalties within the United Kingdom. That is much noble Lords. greater in its extent and impact on the sentencing policies of the courts than that of the few people who Motion agreed. move abroad after a financial penalty has been imposed and not paid. Of course we are looking at the whole Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations area of sentencing policy with regard to the issue of short-term sentences, and we can only encourage the and Non-Contractual Obligations courts to move away from them in circumstances (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations where they have confidence in the imposition of non- 2019 custodial sentences, which of course include community Considered in Grand Committee orders and financial orders. I would suggest that this is a relatively small aspect of a bigger problem, but I 6.05 pm acknowledge the bigger problem. It is one that requires to be analysed fully as we take forward our sentencing Moved by Lord Keen of Elie policy. That the Grand Committee do consider the Law That takes me neatly or otherwise on to the final Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non- point, which is the question of taking into account Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) prior convictions. Just to be clear: this regulation Regulations 2019. addresses the question of what the court does once it has the information and the data. Indeed, the question The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) of data transfer is, I am pleased to say, a matter for (Con): My Lords, as before, this instrument forms part Home Office Ministers. of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure that there are functioning domestic laws in the event that Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con): My noble and the United Kingdom leaves the European Union without learned friend speaks for the Government. a future deal on civil judicial co-operation. Of course, as I have indicated before, the Government’s priority is Lord Keen of Elie: My Whip has just reminded me to secure that we leave the European Union with an that I speak for the Government. Of course I do—with agreement that will address these matters.This instrument relish. Be that as it may, Home Office Ministers have relates solely to the situation in which we have to in fact already brought forward an SI on plans to deal accommodate no-deal exit preparations. In the event with the transfer of data under the ECR and that has that we enter an agreement and there is an implementation already been debated and approved. But perhaps it is period, the coming into force of this instrument will more important to point out that, with regard to the be deferred until the end of that implementation period. transfer of data concerning previous convictions, that Of course, its terms and applicability would be considered can be secured under a European Council directive in the light of any future agreement secured during the and therefore there remains a mechanism by which we implementation period. GC 349 Law Applicable to [LORDS] Law Applicable to GC 350

[LORD KEEN OF ELIE] contractual and non-contractual matters. For example, The instrument relates to the existing European Rome I contains rules specific to insurance contracts, Union rules that determine which country’s laws apply consumer contracts and employment contracts, while when citizens have cross-border obligations, such as Rome II contains rules specific to product liability, when they are buying or selling goods and services. unfair competition and environmental damage. They apply to both contractual and non-contractual Although part of the EU civil judicial co-operation matters. An example of a cross-border contractual framework, the Rome rules differ from the other EU rules matter would be a contract for the sale of goods by a in that framework in one important respect. The Rome company in France to a company in England. An example rules do not, for the most part, rely on reciprocity to of a non-contractual matter would be the duty of care operate effectively between member states. Participating owed by a party in one EU country to a client based in EU member state courts must apply the applicable law another—for example, not to give negligent advice determined by the rules, irrespective of whether that that causes financial loss. The rules are known as law is the law of an EU member state or a non-EU applicable law or conflict of law rules, and are entirely country. For example, if you are in France, the French separate and distinct from the jurisdiction rules that courts are obliged to apply those rules even though determine which country’s courts should hear a cross- your choice of law may be Russian, American or that border dispute. They are an important part of the of any other state outwith the EU. That is essentially EU civil judicial co-operation framework and they why we are able to retain these rules in domestic law enhance legal certainty, which in turn underpins trade going forward. and commerce between member states—and, indeed, This statutory instrument implements the Rome between member states and the rest of the world. rules in the event that we leave without a deal by The EU applicable law rules are currently found in retaining the rules as domestic law, post exit. Of course, two main instruments: the Rome I and Rome II a benefit of that is ensuring that UK citizens, businesses regulations. The Rome I regulation on the law applicable and consumers continue to have clear and workable to contractual obligations is a directly applicable rules on which law applies to cross-border situations EU regulation. It applies to contracts formed on and they may find themselves in. Consequently, when we after 17 December 2009. It is the current law in all leave the EU and in the event that we do so without a EU member states other than Denmark, which opted deal, the Rome I and II regulations will effectively be out of this regulation. I should note that the Rome I retained as domestic law; under the provisions of the regulation was preceded by the 1980 Rome Convention withdrawal Act 2018, they will become retained European on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, a law. treaty to which the UK and a number of now-EU member However, certain amendments are required because states are still contracting parties. That treaty came there will be some differences in how the Rome rules into force in the United Kingdom on 1 April 1991 and are applied by courts in the United Kingdom and was implemented through the Contracts (Applicable those in EU member states, post exit. Due to the way Law) Act 1990. It continues to apply to any contracts in which the EU rules are constructed, EU member entered into between April 1991 and 16 December 2009. states may treat UK cases slightly differently in some Of course, such contracts might conceivably still be in specific instances, for example where Rome I and II force today; also, it still applies to contracts with refer specifically to member states or the European Denmark because it opted out of the subsequent community. We will have to accommodate that when regulation. The Rome II regulation on the law applicable we bring the matter into domestic law; we have therefore to non-contractual obligations is also a directly applicable amended these references. Our status as a contracting EU regulation. It commenced on 11 January 2009 party will alter but we will have those rules in our and, like Rome I, is the law in all EU member states domestic law as retained European law. other than Denmark. However,the position regarding the Rome convention If I may, I will refer simply to the “Rome rules” in —the earlier convention—is different because our status addressing this matter. In each case, the Rome rules as a contracting party to it will terminate as a matter start from the premise that parties subject at least to of international law once the UK has left the EU. The certain limitations are entitled to choose the country’s convention will no longer be binding on the United law that applies to their contractual or non-contractual Kingdom. The approach taken in this instrument is obligations. They operate so that, provided that the that the substantive rules of the convention will continue requirements of the rules are complied with, their and are brought into domestic law but, as I noted choice of law is valid, will be respected by the courts of before, they apply only to contracts entered into up to a participating EU member state and will be applied 16 December 2009 and in respect of Denmark. One to determine any dispute. Where the parties have not change to the convention provisions will be that UK chosen a country’s law, the Rome rules lay down a set courts will no longer be in a position under the convention of default rules to enable parties and the courts to rules to refer questions of interpretation of the 1980 determine which country’s laws will apply. Rome convention to the Court of Justice of the European There are both general and specific default rules. Union. For contractual matters, the general default rule in Rome I is that the applicable law should be the law of the country with which the contract is most closely 6.15 pm connected. For non-contractual matters under Rome II, An impact assessment has been prepared for this it is the law of the country in which the damage occurs. instrument and published. It concluded that the impact In addition, special rules apply to particular types of on business and other bodies will be negligible. The GC 351 Law Applicable to [25 MARCH 2019] Law Applicable to GC 352 amendments to retained EU law and domestic legislation That is compounded by the fact that these regulations in this instrument merely correct EU exit-related remove the ability of UK courts to refer questions of deficiencies with regard to the Rome I and Rome II interpretation of the 1980 Rome convention to the provisions, and will continue to be applied in the Court of Justice of the European Union—to my mind, United Kingdom as domestic law, post exit. that is a significant restriction—just as the interpretation I should also mention consultation. There is a large of retained EU law generally cannot be decided by measure of support from the Law Society and the Bar that court. We are going from a well understood legal Council of England and Wales with regard to this system to something that is much more limited than matter.The draft instrument was published and deposited we have been used to. in the House Library in March 2018. A small number On the broad basis, however, the fact that the rights of comments were received in response to that publication. are generally retained is to be welcomed. Those comments focused on areas where the retained version of the rules in the UK will diverge from the Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab): My Lords, in an attempt rules as they apply in EU member states. The comments once more to be succinct, I can echo the point that the made in that context have been taken up. One example noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was making. The concerns is in the context of the derogations from the Rome from this side are essentially about regulatory diversion. rules; for example, a derogation in respect of insurance I do not think anybody is going to object to these contracts if the relevant insurance is in a member regulations; the concern is with ongoing regulatory state. We will cease to be a member state, so we have divergence and its potential impact, whether it is on had to take out the reference to “member state” and unfair competition cases or IP cases and so on. Perhaps put in “a relevant state”; a relevant state is a member the Minister might consider briefly that risk of regulatory state or the United Kingdom for those purposes. Of divergence in his reply. course, if the rules continue to apply in the EU 27, that Inrelationtoinsurance,theExplanatoryMemorandum does not include the United Kingdom because it will says: no longer be within the relevant definition. “The Government engaged with representatives of the insurance Our approach has been to retain in domestic law as industry”, far as conceivably possible the relevant Rome I and in relation to “insurance risks”. Can the Minister Rome II provisions, and to apply the provisions of the outline the types of risks identified in that engagement? convention. I beg to move. Weare told that banks and insurers are shifting hundreds of billions of pounds in assets out of the UK ahead of Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD): My Lords, I think exit day to keep their contracts and policies within the it very appropriate that the Ministry of Justice should EU area. We have learned that Aviva, Britain’s second decide as a principle as far as possible to preserve the largest insurer, will transfer around £9 billion in assets existing rules as they currently apply in the UK to a new Irish company, for example. Does the Minister immediately after exit day. The purpose is, agree with having that sort of risk to our economy? “to provide maximum certainty and stability for businesses and Does this reflect the concern about different outcomes individuals”. that could result from insurance contract cases being However, I am concerned about the impact on business, resolved differently in our courts and those of our even though the impact assessment does not throw up EU partners in the future? anything in particular. I am always very conscious of the strength of Hong Kong, which built its reputation As I say, my general proposition is on the risks of and financial power on the fact that it uses English regulatory divergence, but one can hardly object to the common law as the basis of its legal system. That instrument itself. means that contracts are readily made and understood, which has been of great economic benefit to Hong Lord Keen of Elie: I am obliged to the noble Lord Kong. I notice that the impact assessment refers to and to the noble Baroness for their observations. As the, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, there will no longer be scope for a reference to the Court of Justice “strong international reputation as a centre of legal excellence”, of the European Union over the construction or that this country currently enjoys. Anyone connected interpretationof theconvention.Giventhattheconvention with the law knows that our legal profession has a has been there since 1980, that may already have great reputation, English law is frequently the preferred happened but we cannot say that it would never have law and English courts are used even though a particular happened again. But I say to the noble Lord—and I dispute has nothing to do with England, so this is a address this to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti very profitable part of the legal world. as well—that, although there is no longer a basis for a I shall take as an example one matter referred to in reference by a UK court to the Court of Justice, the paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which UK courts may of course have regard to the decisions refers to, of the Court of Justice going forward. Quite sensibly, “the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising from they would have regard to decisions that bore upon … infringements of unitary EU intellectual property rights Trade the interpretation of the convention, or of Rome I and Marks … Design Rights and … Plant Variety Rights. These unitary EU IP rights will no longer apply in the UK … and UK II as well. That would be of relevance to the incorporation courts will no longer hear proceedings relating to such rights after in domestic law of provisions which had their genesis exit day”. in those European Union provisions. It seems to me that there is a whole area of law which The immediate matter of insurance is quite narrow may be cut out from the jurisdiction of English courts and concerns one of the limited derogations from the and the services of English lawyers. freedom to choose your own law, as it were. There is a GC 353 Law Applicable to[LORDS] Architects Act 1997 Regulations 2019 GC 354

[LORD KEEN OF ELIE] Leaving the EU with a deal remains the Government’s limitation about choice of law where an insurance top priority. This has not changed but the responsible contract contains provision to cover risks located in thing to do is to accelerate no-deal preparations to the European Union. Essentially, there cannot be an ensure that the country is prepared for every eventuality. insurance contract that covers risks in an EU member These regulations are made using powers in the European state where the law of Russia is chosen as the relevant Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix legal deficiencies law for resolving the contract. The difficulty faced in in retained EU law to reflect that the UK will no drafting these regulations was that the reference under longer be an EU member state after exit day. Our the derogation was to a risk in an EU member state. architectural sector is a global leader and plays a We were going to be concerned not only with a risk in significant role in the British economy, with an export an EU member state but with a risk in the United surplus of £437 million in 2015 and involvement in Kingdom. This is why we have had to move from key global projects such as the Neues Museum in reference to “member state” to “relevant state”, which Berlin and the Smithsonian National Museum of African is, in turn, defined by reference to member states and American History & Culture in Washington DC. the United Kingdom. It is a fairly narrow move, which I trust that noble Lords will allow me to provide a I do not believe is, of itself, going to impact on the brief overview of how the system works at present. choice or application of law with regard to the type of The mutual recognition of professional qualifications contract to any material extent. I do not see how it directive enables EEA nationals to have certain would impact on the transfer of assets such as was qualifications recognised in another member state. referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. This includes the recognition of suitably qualified This is not what this regulation is addressing. architects. This is a reciprocal arrangement, allowing I acknowledge that, if we leave the European Union UK and other EEA nationals the opportunity easily without a deal—which is not this Government’spreferred to register to practice across Europe and UK practices option—there will be issues for banks, insurance to recruit the best European talent. The Architects companies and others with regard to their future Act 1997 sets out the specific procedures for registering arrangements in the European Union. No one would architects in the United Kingdom. The recognition of take away from that. That said, this is essentially qualifications of EEA applicants is carried out by the implementing an existing scheme with just those changes competent authority, the Architects Registration Board, necessary to make sure it operates in domestic law. I an arm’s-length body of my department. do not believe this is going to take away from the attractiveness of English law—or, indeed, Scots law—as There are currently three routes to recognition for a system for the resolution of commercial disputes. an EEA architect wishing to register in the United English law in particular remains the lingua franca for Kingdom. The main route to recognition in the United charter parties, major commercial contracts and so Kingdom for an EEA-national architect is through an on. Because of the flexibility of common law, it will automatic recognition system. To qualify for automatic continue to be used for this reason. I do not see that recognition, an EEA national needs to meet three this is going to result in any major change. No doubt criteria. They must have an approved qualification—that there are options when it comes to choosing a common is, one listed in Annexe V of the EU’s mutual recognition law system—such as the law of Hong Kong, Singapore of professional qualifications directive—access to the or New York, for example. That already exists and we profession of architect in an EEA member state and a deal with it. statement from their home competent authority confirming that they are fit to practice. Noting all the observations that have been made, I beg to move. A second route, known as general systems, provides Motion agreed. recognition for EEA nationals who do not have an approved qualification. General systems allows EEAs national to map their qualification and experience Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) against UK standards with the Architects Registration (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Board. An applicant is offered compensation measures, Considered in Grand Committee that is, the opportunity to undertake additional training to make up any differences in qualification. This is a 6.28 pm long and costly process, which on average only four Moved by Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth people pursue annually. That the Grand Committee do consider the The third route facilitates the temporary or occasional Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) provision of service. This allows EEA professionals to Regulations 2019. work in the United Kingdom in a regulated profession on a temporary basis while remaining established in The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry their home state. Typically, fewer than 20 EEA architects of Housing, Communities and Local Government and pursue this option at any one time. Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con): My If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the mutual Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses recognition of professional qualifications directive will on 18 February 2019. They are part of the Government’s no longer apply in the United Kingdom. This statutory programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK instrument ensures that UK architect practices can leaves the EU without a deal and an implementation continue to recruit the best European talent and maintain period, there continues to be a functioning legislative their global reputation as world leaders in the field of and regulatory regime. architecture. GC 355 Architects Act 1997 Regulations 2019[25 MARCH 2019] Architects Act 1997 Regulations 2019 GC 356

The policy intention is to provide the sector with in a guidance document in January 2019. These regulations confidence that almost all applicants can register in serve a very specific purpose: to prioritise stability and the same way after exit day as they do currently. This is certainty if the United Kingdom leaves the EU without the approach favoured by the sector, which recognises a deal or an implementation period. The regulations the skills brought by EEA architects as contributing will ensure that the UK continues to have access to top positively to the UK’s reputation as a world leader. European talent after we have left the EU, thereby The instrument also allows applications made before helping to maintain the UK’s reputation as a global exit day to be concluded under the current system as leader in architectural services. Thereafter, they provide far as possible. For future applications after EU exit in a stable basis for Parliament to change the law where it a no-deal scenario, an individual holding an approved is in the UK’s best interests to do so. qualification will be able to join the UK register This instrument is necessary to ensure that the of architects if they have access to the profession of Architects Act continues to function appropriately architect in their home state. The instrument will achieve if the UK leaves the EU without a deal and an this by freezing the current list of approved qualifications implementation period. I hope that noble Lords will in the EU’s mutual recognition of professional join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to qualifications directive. This approach will preserve move. access for UK practices to EEA-qualified architects. This process will be open to anyone with an EEA qualification and access to the profession in the Lord Shipley (LD): My Lords, I thank the Minister corresponding EEA state, regardless of citizenship. for his explanation. At present, one in six architects in Although temporary,this approach will provide continuity the UK IS from the EU 27. Indeed, the Royal Institute to the sector in the immediate period after we leave the of British Architects estimates that in London and the EU with no deal and will be reviewed after exit. south-east the proportion is as high as a quarter. Many are employed by large firms with international We will remove general systems as a route to portfolios of work, particularly on big infrastructure registration—noble Lords will recall that this is the and construction projects such as airports. The currently the second route for qualification, but only contribution of EU 27 architects is not just numerical; four or five people pursue it in any one year—as it is a it also relates to cultural, language and specialist skills, long and costly process which is not utilised often. It such as interior design or acoustics, which give high places a significant unnecessary burden on individuals added value to the UK’scapacity to export its architectural and the Architects Registration Board. Therefore services worldwide. Retaining access to EU 27 architects applicants without an approved qualification, including will therefore be very important to the continued applicants who would have previously qualified for prosperity of the architectural services export sector, acquired rights, will now be able to pursue the prescribed which depends on having cosmopolitan skills available exam route and undertake further examinations and to deploy in designing schemes that will be built right periods of study to allow registration. This is the route across the world. One estimate is that this generates currently utilised by third-country nationals. around £2 billion of export earnings a year. In addition, We will encourage the regulator, the Architects there are EU 27 architects resident abroad who are Registration Board, to maintain its existing effective employed on UK building projects. Without them, relationships with other EEA competent authorities. work would be delayed and the industry’s capacity The instrument provides a legal basis for the ARB to severely reduced. continue communicating with other EEA competent This statutory instrument at least recognises that authorities to facilitate recognition decisions, ensuring there is a looming problem. It could be said to be that it can verify that the applicant meets the UK’s making the best of a bad job by attempting to continue high standard of competence. ready access for qualified architects from the rest of This instrument places a requirement on the applicant Europe to the UK. However, paragraph 2.10 of the to obtain the relevant information from their home Explanatory Memorandum relates to individuals’ability competent authority, should the Architects Registration to come to the UK because they will be subject to Her Board not be able to secure it. This is because currently Majesty’s Government’s immigration policy. In other the Architects Registration Board facilitates information words, first, there will be an income limit; secondly, sharing through the EU internal market information there will be access only via an employer’s application system. Without a deal we cannot be confident that and payment of an annual fee; and, thirdly, there will the Architects Registration Board will continue to be no right to move from job to job. That last point is have access to this important information-sharing system. particularly relevant in this sector, where particular The instrument will remove the right of temporary expertise may be needed only for a short time on any and occasional provision of services as without guaranteed one project and it would be routine to move on to access to information systems and an agreed process another firm with a similar project at the right stage for reciprocation, this route becomes unwieldy and of for the exercise of a specialism. There is serious concern less value. This will have minimal impact on the sector within the construction industry that the Government as only 12 people are currently practising on that do not acknowledge the importance of the sector in basis. Historically, fewer than 20 people have practised delivering every other policy objective of homes, capital as an architect in the UK on a temporary and occasional investment in the NHS and capital investment in basis at any one time. education, nor do they seem to understand the key Our overall approach to these amendments is in role that migrants at every skill level of the industry line with the policy and legal intent of the withdrawal play in delivering the key outcomes that the Government Act and enacts the policy that the Government set out want. GC 357 Architects Act 1997 Regulations 2019[LORDS] Architects Act 1997 Regulations 2019 GC 358

[LORD SHIPLEY] with these things. They do not appear to have spoken I have three questions for the Minister. First, does to the RIBA. Of course, we have a rather curious he recognise that no deal puts at risk not just the system in Britain, whereby our professional body is delivery of key government policy objectives in many not the regulator. That is all to do with some ridiculous fields but will undermine the export potential of a concept that somehow or other, because there is a tiny flourishing architectural services sector? Secondly, what number of architects who are not members of the assessment have the Government made of the median RIBA, we have to have a separate organisation to deal salary paid to EU 27 architects in the UK, and what is with this. Normally, both are consulted, and I am his department’s estimate of the reduction in numbers surprised that the RIBA was not consulted. of architects coming to the UK as a consequence of this imposition of the universal immigration salary Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth: It was. cap on this group? Thirdly, will he look again at why the Government have decided to end the right to an individualised skills Lord Deben: Well, if it were consulted, why is it not assessment for those coming from the EU 27 who may listed in the Explanatory Memorandum, as far as I not have fully completed their accreditation? That is can see? Perhaps I have misread it—I apologise to my known as general systems, as set out in paragraph 2.12 noble friend if I have—but I think it says that the ARB of theExplanatoryMemorandum.Thishastheappearance was consulted, or that officials of pettiness, cutting out a route for a minority of “have been in regular contact with ARB”. potential employees for no good reason and simply The ARB is constantly referred to, not the RIBA. I souring the atmosphere further. I hope the Government have declared my interest, but it happens to be true understand that what may appear to be a short and that the RIBA is the body to which most architects simple statutory instrument in relation to architects would look for advice and to which they have given couldactuallyhaveprofoundimplicationsfortheinternational their concerns. status and competitiveness of the architectural industry. As this is not going to be a both-ways arrangement Lord Deben (Con): My Lords, I declare an interest and because the Government do not want a no-deal as an honorary fellow of the RIBA. exit from the European Union—although what the blazes they do want is increasingly difficult to understand, I agree very much with what has just been said. and I suspect that the negotiations would have gone Obviously my noble friend is presenting this as a much better if people had known in the first place necessary statutory instrument were we to leave the what they wanted, because clearly not until very recently European Union without a deal, and in that sense no did anybody know anything about what we wanted—can doubt we will have to pass it. However, we have also to the Minister give me an assurance that one of the say that it is an interesting example of the Government’s things we will be seeking immediately in negotiations amazing ability to recognise that there is a need and for some sort of reasonable exit—which of course produce a way of making sure that everyone who is an would leave us in a worse position than we are in at the architect can come here, so we are not going to shoot moment—but even if that was so, would be to make ourselves in the foot, without saying the key thing, this a reciprocal arrangement and that that reciprocity which is that our architects cannot go there. We are would be at least as good as the present reciprocity? becoming an island that wants all the advantages but wants to carry none of the responsibility. That leads me to my last point, which is on the I know my noble friend will not like this, but I say Immigration Rules. The architectural profession is to him that I am sorry that he, of all people, should be remarkably badly paid. If you look at the average asked to present a measure that is another indication wage of an architect, it is remarkably low for a member of the sense of decline that this nation now has. of a professional body. So I am concerned, as was the Instead of recognising that in so manythings co-operation, noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we should not allow common views, common standards and common deals the Immigration Rules to interfere with our ability to are necessary, we are busy trying to pretend that there recruit from the rest of Europe. It seems to me that is an alternative route—a kind of 19th-century this is a serious double jeopardy system. Why do we protectionist route—keeping the opportunity to gain have to have these rules? Surely we could have had, in advantages from other people but not expecting to these regulations, a very simple system which said that play our part in common standards and the like. I am if you got a job with a British architect registered with sorry he has to do it—I am sure that he finds it as the ARB you would be able to have that job. Why do difficult as I would were I in his position—but I we have to double-do it? Is there not a much more remind noble Lords of the seriousness of what this sensible way, which is merely to do exactly what we do actually means. It means becoming a different kind of at the moment and say publicly that we would like this country, one which is much less worthy than the to continue to be reciprocal, although we do not have country that first entered the European Union. the ability to make it reciprocal ourselves? I remind my noble friend of the figures that have 6.45 pm been quoted: it is likely that one in four of architects in It is,of course,very disadvantageous,because architects the London area come from the rest of Europe, so this are not able to move from one company to another. is no minor matter. Therefore, I hope that we can have The point that the noble Lord has just made is very assurances that the Government will seek, under any important, and I am surprised that the Government, agreement, to have reciprocity and, secondly, that the in their so-called consultation, spoke only to the Minister will look again at the idea that we have to register itself, the technical organisation that deals insist upon going through our immigration arrangements, GC 359 Architects Act 1997 Regulations 2019[25 MARCH 2019] Architects Act 1997 Regulations 2019 GC 360 when we could have a perfectly simple system, like the The Explanatory Memorandum states: one we have at the moment. We should look very “The applicant’s ability to establish in the UK will be dependent carefully at any income limit in any case because it is on Government immigration policies”. likely to affect newly-qualified architects from the rest However, the Government’s immigration Bill has stalled of Europe in a way that would do our profession no and a £30,000 salary requirement for skilled migrants good. It would interfere with, and indeed endanger, has been suggested. How many architects from EU or the very large amount of money that Britain earns EEA countries living in the UK earn more than £30,000 through the primacy of our architectural profession. now? How many architects have already registered When you are talking about what may be £2 billion, with the Government’s settled-status scheme? Being a you are talking about a very serious amount of money. tier 2 sponsor for those earning more than £30,000 is If we cannot recruit newly-qualified experts from the difficult for many architecture firms because the process rest of Europe to a shockingly underpaid profession, is lengthy and expensive. Have the Government done that would do us a great deal of harm. any work with the sector and the RIBA to assess exactly how much it will cost and whether the sector Lord Beecham (Lab): My Lords, not for the first can bear the cost? According to the RIBA, the number time, Newcastle is united in this Grand Committee. I of EU architects registering to practise in the UK has think we would both welcome the noble Lord, who dropped by 42% since 2016, and 60% of them here at has characteristically analysed the Government’sproposals the moment say that they would consider leaving. in a very effective way. That would damage architecture as a service both in this country and abroad; it would clearly suffer. This instrument will freeze the list of architectural qualifications that are recognised immediately before Architectural qualification requirements are frozen exit day in the event of a no-deal Brexit. As a result, an during the review period. How long does the Minister individual holding one of those qualifications will be expect that period to last? How will architects come eligible to join the UK register of architects if they have and work in the UK with new qualifications during access to the profession of architect in their home state. this period? Paragraph 2.14 of the Explanatory This will allow access to the workforce of EU-qualified Memorandum states: and EEA-qualified architects. The register of qualified “After EU exit, the ARB may lose access to the Internal architects of the UK held by the Architects Registration Market Information (IMI) system. This facilitates communication between competent authorities. As a result, this instrument places Board currently includes 40,650 members, 17% of the requirement to provide written verification from their home whom were admitted under EU directive procedures. competent authority on the applicant should ARB be unable to Given that significant number, it is astonishing that no secure it directly from the relevant competent authority”. impact assessment appears to have been prepared for What assessment have the Government carried out to this SI. The UK must of course continue to attract the determine the ease of getting this written verification? best talent after Brexit and have an immigration system Does it differ between authorities? Paragraph 2.12 that responds to the needs of industry, especially in states: the context of the architectural sector. The London’s “This instrument removes the registration route of General Architectural Sector report states that the city’sarchitecture Systems, which enables EU and EEA applicants who do not meet industry is worth £1.7 billion and is growing at 7% every the automatic recognition criteria to work with the ARB to map year. That figure is set against the industry’s total what experience they do have against the UK criteria, and gain value nationally of £4.8 billion, a significant contribution the experience necessary”. to the economy nationally. Will the ARB offer any additional help to get candidates The SI makes little attempt to make up for the to work in the UK? damage that the industry has faced since the referendum, Finally, what estimate have the Government made which has caused an alarming amount of uncertainty of Brexit’s impact on UK practices and individuals for businesses in the last two and half years. Since the currently, or potentially, working in Europe? What referendum, projects up and down the country have steps, if any, are they taking to create a new system been postponed as this period of chaos has badly damaged including a reciprocal system of accepted professional the investment market. An article on Consultancy.uk qualifications? referred to Global by Design, published in 2018 by the RIBA, which said that 68% of architects have already Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth: My Lords, I thank all seen Brexit impact their revenue stream as they have noble Lords who responded to the SI. I will seek to had projects put on hold and moreover, crucially, that deal with the various points they have made. 74% of architects regard access to the EU single First, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley,rightly emphasised market as necessary if the industry’s international the importance of qualified architects from the EU 27. workload is to grow. Already 40% of practices have Of course, this measure goes a bit beyond that because had projects in the EU cancelled since the referendum. it covers EEA-qualified architects from Liechtenstein, The regulations fail to protect the recognition of Norway and Iceland too. Switzerland is in a similar UK-qualified architects’ qualifications in the EEA in position but the EU 27 countries make up the most the event of a no-deal Brexit. Those architects will significant part of the regulations. I do not deny that have to rely on the individual registration policies of the regulations are important for the United Kingdom— the 27 member states. The Government must look to indeed, I would affirm it—because of the impact they establish a new mutual recognition agreement with the would otherwise have on individuals practising here or EU as soon as possible in order to provide reciprocity, seeking to do so in future, and because of the importance and a date for that would be very welcome. I will be of this sector to the UK economy. The regulations are interested to hear the Minister’s response on that issue. therefore important for those positions. GC 361 Architects Act 1997 Regulations 2019[LORDS] Flags Regulations 2019 GC 362

[LORD BOURNE OF ABERYSTWYTH] discussions yet, but there is good progress on them. Like other noble Lords, the noble Lord referred to My noble friend also referred to architects being badly the general immigration position, rather than anything paid, which I have dealt with. specific to architects as such. Reference has been made The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made a point to the £30,000 threshold. I should say that as things about the internal information system to which we will stand, it is not the defined and final position of the not have access if we come out with no deal. I dealt Home Office. Rather, it is a recommendation of the with that in the course of the presentation, saying that Migration Advisory Committee so we will feed in we would require verification from member state bodies information regarding different sectors. We are working in relation to individuals who are qualified through with our professional business service colleagues in the EU 27 or the EEA—the other three countries— BEIS to collect information from architecture firms because we will not have automatic access to the around the country on what the threshold should be. I internal information system. It is something we would agree with my noble friend about the position of seek to agree. If we come out with a deal, we would architects as a profession: on the whole—with exceptions, certainly seek to agree it in an implementation period. of course—their earnings tend to be on the low side. Coming out without a deal, it would be in jeopardy; I That will certainly be a relevant factor and one we fully accept that. would wish to pursue. A question was raised by my noble friend and others The noble Lord went on to discuss the recognition about the consultations we have had. I apologise if of the general systems in a no-deal scenario. He could this is misleading in the documentation, but we have not understand why we were not pursuing that. I am spoken with the ARB, the Royal Institute of British not sure whether this was grasped, and it may be my Architects and some practices such as Foster and fault, but I emphasise that we are seeking to freeze the Partners, Allies and Morrison, David Chipperfield qualifications that are recognised. This does not mean and others. We have had quite a bit of consultation, that those who go on to get those qualifications later and I apologise if that is not clear in the documentation. on cannot then practise in this country. They can The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about the while this remains the legal position, so after this is absence of an impact assessment. This is totally in line passed it would not debar anyone with these qualifications with the general requirement in relation to impact from practising in the UK. Indeed, while this remains assessments, which are not needed if the impact is less the law it seeks to facilitate that. It is not those people than £5 million a year. The indication we have had—and who already have the qualifications; it is recognising this has been verified within the department—is that it those qualifications. Anyone getting that qualification is significantly less. It is probably running at about later on will certainly be able to practise in the United £500,000 a year for the extra staff needed to deal with Kingdom. I remind noble Lords that the number of the qualification process that will now not be centralised people using the general systems qualification is four in the way it was previously. Publicity runs at about or five a year. Of those who make inquiries about it, £17,000 a year and, with a drop in the income from 96% do not pursue this route because it is very fees, is calculated at some £519,000. In total, this is in cumbersome and difficult, so it is viewed as better that line with the position on the better regulation framework. they qualify in the way we are setting out. Regulation 2 sets out the limit. I hope that this deals with the points which have 7 pm been raised. I understand noble Lords’ concerns, but I was automatically suspicious when my noble friend this is necessary in case of a no-deal scenario. I agree Lord Deben referred to the Government’s “amazing that we do not want no deal. This is, therefore, very ability”. I knew there was going to be a sting in the tail much second best. There is work to be done on reciprocity and sure enough there was, but my noble friend made which is what we are seeking to do at the moment. We very fair points, as he always does, and he will not be are speaking to the ARB and, with them, to other surprised to know that I agree with him that a no-deal member states to seek to ensure that this is the position. scenario is far from desirable. This is being put in in If there is anything I have missed, I will happily cover case that is the situation we are in; it is certainly not it in a letter to noble Lords, perhaps restating some of something I or the Government want. He also talked the points which I have made. With that, I commend about the legal position in relation to income, which I the regulations. think I have already dealt with. Motion agreed. My noble friend then went on to deal with some other aspects. He asked if I could guarantee that the Government are seeking reciprocity of standards; I Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) certainly can. We already have a significant undertaking (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 from Ireland—of course, it is not the only significant Considered in Grand Committee state but it most certainly is significant—that it will continue to recognise British qualifications for those 7.06 pm who started their qualification before the referendum Moved by Lord Duncan of Springbank in June 2016, so that position is already guaranteed. With the ARB we are talking to all other member That the Grand Committee do consider the states with a view to ensuring that there is reciprocity. Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) That is certainly the desired position, and from the Regulations 2019. discussions we are having there are indications that Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary that will be fruitful. We have not concluded those Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B). GC 363 Flags Regulations 2019 [25 MARCH 2019] Flags Regulations 2019 GC 364

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern It is also interesting to note, as a matter of design, that Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of the design of the flag—12 stars against a sky background Springbank) (Con): My Lords, the purpose of this —represents symbols of perfection. It represents the instrument is to remove the legal requirement for Northern 12 apostles, the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 labours of Ireland government buildings and court buildings to Hercules and the 12 months of the year. It is a symbol observe Europe Day—9 May—as a designated flag-flying of peace in Europe and Europe Day represents peace day after the UK has left the European Union. in Europe, originally foreshadowed by the Schuman Flag-flying from government buildings and court declaration. I am pleased that the Minister said that, buildings in Northern Ireland is regulated by the Flags at least this year, the European flag may continue to Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. These regulations fly; at least I think that is what he said, because this provide that on certain designated days the union year is the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the flag—and, in certain circumstances, other flags—may Council of Europe and it would seem very regrettable be flown on government buildings. For the purposes then to remove the flag from public buildings in Northern of these regulations, a Northern Ireland government Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. building is defined as a building that is wholly or I put two questions to the Minister. There is no mainly occupied by members of the Northern Ireland need whatever for this to be passed, is there not? I am Civil Service. In 2002, the flag-flying requirements in minded—indeed, I intend—to table a Motion to the the 2000 regulations were extended to court buildings effect that this statutory instrument should be abandoned in Northern Ireland. and that any such decision as to which flags are flown The instrument is being made under Section 8(1) of should be left to the relevant authorities in Northern the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which Ireland as and when they are able to do so. I would also makes provisions to deal with arrangements no longer like clarification of what the DCMS guidance means appropriate after the UK leaves the EU. It is worth for public buildings in the rest of the United Kingdom noting that Europe Day will cease to be a designated where, it seems to me, the Europe flag should fly on flag-flying day across England, Scotland and Wales Europe Day and other organisations should be allowed following the UK’s exit from the EU. The Department to make their own decisions. The only minor detail is for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has already whether you fly it on 5 May or 9 May. The European amended its guidance to that effect. Union chooses to fly it on 9 May, while the Council of When this instrument was first laid, the Secondary Europe flies it on 5 May because that was the date of Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that it the foundation of the Council in 1949. should be upgraded to the “made affirmative”procedure I speak with some passion on this, having been so that it could be debated carefully. This is why we are privileged to have been a member of the Parliamentary here this evening. I also stress that the power to make Assembly of the Council of Europe for six years. I am these amending regulations under the EU withdrawal a passionate believer that the Council of Europe has Act does not come into force until after exit day. contributed hugely to the development of, and the Therefore, subject to the will of Parliament, these sustaining of peace and democracy in, Europe and regulations will not be made until after exit day has that the United Kingdom, which Ministers have passed. There is every possibility that Europe Day will consistently said may be leaving the European Union—I be marked this year. I beg to move. say may be—is not leaving Europe. I suggest to the Minister that this is a completely inappropriate statutory Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD): My Lords, the Minister instrument, that the DCMS guidelines are also completely may be disappointed and surprised to learn that we inappropriate and that the United Kingdom should do not support this statutory instrument. We think it continue proudly to fly the flag of Europe, not the undesirable and unnecessary. None of us can deny that European Union, on Europe Day. flags in Northern Ireland are a very sensitive issue. Our sister party in Northern Ireland suffered the Lord Deben (Con): My Lords, I was present in the consequences of the dispute in Belfast in 2012 when its debate when we discussed the flags issue in the first offices were burned out. place. In the House of Commons at that time, we This is about a specific flag—the Europe flag— sought to ensure that the union flag was not used as a and a specific day. I am very concerned that DCMS badge of sectarian difference. I was not only present has issued guidance—which I presume is not legally but spoke in favour of the Government’s move, against enforceable—that, if we leave the European Union, we the united opposition of the Ulster Unionists at that should no longer fly the Europe flag on Europe Day. time: they did not want those restrictions. The purpose This seems a total denial of where this flag came from was to promote peace and harmony and to recognise and what it is supposed to celebrate, which is not the the union flag as the flag of all who lived in the north European Union. The flag is in fact much older than of Ireland and not just of one part. Therefore, this is a the European Union, or even the Common Market: it very important issue and nothing that I say is meant to was, in fact, created in 1955 as the flag of the Council suggest that we should not have this rather different of Europe. It remains the flag of the Council of regulation for the north of Ireland, because this is Europe and the UK will continue to be a member of about the history of the misuse of the union flag for the Council—for ever, I hope—although the Prime sectarian purposes. Minister gives the impression that she would like to I take that very seriously, but I also take very seriously leave that organisation as well. I would absolutely what seems to me to be a cheap and nasty statutory deplore, as that was one organisation of which we instrument. We have had to put up with all sorts of were a founder member. statutory instruments that we would have to have if we GC 365 Flags Regulations 2019 [LORDS] Flags Regulations 2019 GC 366

[LORD DEBEN] Torfaen for 30 years and responsible for more social were to leave the European Union without a deal, legislation than any individual MP.When he announced but this one is not necessary. There is no reason for it his retirement, he said: “I do not know who will at all, except a nasty little smack at the European succeed me. My only advice is: tolerate everyone, Union and at Europe as a whole. tolerate everything, but never ever tolerate the intolerant”. If the Government were trying to be helpful and to This provision is a crass act of intolerance. It is not include people who are so deeply upset by all the just silly.Those of us who have served in both Houses—a Brexit shenanigans, they would merely have changed number of us in the Committee today have served in the date from 9 May to 5 May. We would merely have the Commons and in this House—know that at times flown this flag on the day of the Council of Europe; Parliament has done some silly things, but this is a that is the day when the council flies it. So there was a stupid and offensive thing. I have the honour to serve perfectly reasonable way in which the Government on the Council of Europe.Together with parliamentarians could have done that and in which DCMS could have from both Houses, I will be going there on 7 April for provided its guidance. The truth is that this is unnecessary the next full session of its parliamentary assembly. in any case. It is just mean to treat people in this way, This is the 70th anniversary of the Council of Europe particularly in the north of Ireland where there was a —we were its co-founders—which predates the European significant vote in favour of remaining within the Union. We have heard Ministers and members of the European Union, and among those voters were large Government saying time and again, “We are leaving numbers of unionists. the EU,not leaving Europe”. That point was made earlier 7.15 pm in the debate. This is a symbol of us all in Europe. The Council of Europe is larger, older and more united I know my noble friend well enough to know that he than the European Union. This is the barmiest thing will no doubt defend the Government’s position, but to do, and it is offensive. A leading Conservative, deep down in his heart he knows perfectly well that there Sir Roger Gale, leads Britain’s representatives in the is no need for this measure. It has been brought forward Council of Europe. He does it with pride and does a in, if I may say so, an insulting way.A very large number good job. Please do not think this is blowing our own in the country—I believe it is over 5 million—have trumpet, but I can tell the Committee that the British already signed saying that we should remain within the delegation to the Council of Europe makes a huge European Union, and there were 1 million people on contribution. We take part in most of the debates; the streets.These are not people who should be overlooked some very powerful arguments and good ideas are put in this case. I imagine that the Government feel that forward. We are listened to and benefit from being part they have to do something for the Jacob Rees-Moggs of this greater, wider assembly. of this world. But if they have to ensure that they are in some way insistent about those who have such The symbol of the Council of Europe, of us all within unpleasant views of Europe, they should change the Europe, should be retained. We should use it, we should date to 5 May. Then we would feel that there was some fly it and—as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just attempt to bring together the sections of the community said—if we have an issue about the date we should move who feel so deeply and differently. it to 5 May, the date on which the Council of Europe was set up. The Government really ought to think again. I speak thus because I really do not want the As I say, this is not just silly; it is stupid and offensive. Government to think that those of us who take a different view from them are in some way light-hearted about it. We are deeply distressed by the fact that this Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP): My Lords, Northern country is becoming narrower, less open and less willing Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where to accept a range of views, determined all the time to under the current legislation there are 18 designated rub people’s faces in the fact that on a day three years days for flying the flag on government buildings. Usually ago, a majority of people who were voting voted to these discussions are highly contentious back in Northern leave the European Union. Can we please have a bit of Ireland; as we have heard, in extreme cases—I am respect for those who take a different view? We should thinking of Belfast City Hall—unfortunately they can therefore ask the Minister to go back and insist that lead to civil unrest. This is a delicate matter and has to we fly the flag on one day or the other, not that we are be discussed in a reasonable fashion. not going to celebrate the fact that Europe has come I take a different point of view. I think it would no together in different ways to try to ensure that we do longer be appropriate to fly the flag, especially if we not fall apart, as we did in two World Wars. leave Europe through Brexit, so I support the instrument The issue cannot just be treated like this; it is much before us. On a slightly wider issue, as part of the fresh more serious. It is unworthy of the Government to start agreement negotiated by the Stormont parties in have brought the measure forward as if it were necessary, November 2015, a 15-person commission was set up to when it is not. It is merely an attempt to make a point study a range of long-standing, complex and challenging on one side of a very divisive argument. Let us not be areas in relation to the expression of mutual and cultural as small and petty as that. Let us at least decide to fly identity in Northern Ireland. One of the issues which it on one day. If the Government wanted to change the was to be addressed in that was the unofficial flying of day, I am sure we would support that. flags in outdoor spaces such as on lamp-posts and so on. Has that draft report been completed? If so, can Lord Touhig (Lab): My Lords, my noble friend its findings be published in the absence of a sitting Lord Murphy will speak shortly from these Benches. I Executive? Maybe this committee, if it is still sitting, am reminded as I listen to this debate of the words of could take up the issue. I support the flag not being his predecessor, Leo Abse, MP for Pontypool and then flown if indeed we leave Europe. GC 367 Flags Regulations 2019 [25 MARCH 2019] Flags Regulations 2019 GC 368

Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab): My Lords, I think I I think that is important to recognise. I shall try to support the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, on explain why we are where we are, and then the Committee the situation in Northern Ireland itself. I assume the must reflect upon whether that is adequate to address Government consulted on this issue with the Northern the issues I have raised. Ireland parties—at least, I hope so. If they did not, or The first issue to stress relates to the point made by indeed if they did, it has to be seen in the context of a the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie about the very sensitive issue in Northern Ireland, as the Minister notion of what the flag represents—indeed, being the and others will know. shared flag of the Council of Europe. This is primarily Today we have a specific issue in front of us about about flying the union flag in Northern Ireland. If the European flag. I suspect that this instrument is there are two flagpoles then the second flagpole may both spiteful and flawed. The noble Lords, Lord Deben fly the additional EU flag at a lower level, but if there and Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lord Touhig is only one then it will fly the union flag. It is important have given powerful reasons why it is spiteful, but I do to stress again, and the noble Lord many wish to not think the Government have actually thought of inquire further into this, how many government buildings the implications of the flag also being the flag of the in Northern Ireland have two flagpoles. The answer is Council of Europe. There is no indication in the precious few. We are talking here about the flying of literature we have or in the debate held in the other the union flag in almost every case. place. It seems to me that the Government believed this was entirely about the European Union and Lord Murphy of Torfaen: Would that therefore mean completely forgot the issue of the Council of Europe that the union flag could not be flown on 5 May, and the fact that there are in Europe two separate days which is Council of Europe Day, as opposed to 9 May, to celebrate Europe. Clearly 9 May, the European which is European Union Day? Union day, will no longer be celebrated in the way it has in the past, but 5 May still would be. Both Ireland Lord Duncan of Springbank: The noble Lord has and the United Kingdom remain strong members of pre-empted the question that I was about to answer, so the Council of Europe. I shall come straight on to that. Under this particular The other issue affecting the position of Northern legislation, which of course follows on from the European Ireland in Europe is equally sensitive Some 56% of the Union (Withdrawal) Act, we are able to adjust the people of Northern Ireland wanted to remain. I was legislation to remove 9 May from being a flag-flying European Minister for two years in Northern Ireland. day. If we wish to switch the day to 5 May, though, we I actually went to the Council of Europe to explain the are precluded from doing so under this legislation. Good Friday agreement to all the members and they That is not available to us under this legislation. played a big role, as indeed did the EU itself, not just Therefore, in order for us to move forward, we have to with the peace money; the support that came to Northern go back to the original regulation, the Act dating back Ireland during that period was immense. to the year 2000. In order for us to make any changes We cannot go back over the issues affecting why it to that Act, noble Lords will be aware that there is a is that we are leaving Europe and the effect on Northern three-part process that wholly involves the Assembly Ireland save to say that while our being members of in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly the EU meant that the border on the island of Ireland is consulted, it reports to the Secretary of State and, was blurred and there was constant contact between on that basis, changes can be made. In the absence of Irish and British officials and Ministers because of an Assembly there can be no adjustment from 9 May our joint membership of the same club. Europe has to 5 May, or to any other day, in that regard. played an enormous part in changing the way that Northern Ireland has operated over the past 20 years, 7.30 pm and indeed in the Good Friday agreement. We cannot Lord Deben: I am wondering why we do not just suddenly wipe away all that history in a few seconds, leave it on 9 May. If you cannot change it—which I but this particular instrument seems to be trying to do understand—we should leave it on 9 May and announce precisely that. Symbolically, it is trying to say: “The that this is a reference to our membership of the European Union, the Council of Europe and indeed Council of Europe. If it is the union flag, or the two everything European had nothing at all to do with the flags, then that is perfectly all right. Why do we have to development of Northern Ireland over the last 20 or take it away? It is much better to leave it. Otherwise, it 30 years”, when the contrary is the case. That is why it says something different. is spiteful. It seems to me that it is up to the local authorities Lord Duncan of Springbank: The noble Lord makes and the other public bodies in Northern Ireland if a point which he has made on many occasions—I do they wish to fly the Council of Europe flag on Council not doubt it. Earlier in his remarks, he said that we of Europe Day. What is wrong with that? No, this is a could do it on 9 May, but it would be better to do it on nasty little statutory instrument. It ignores the past, it 5 May because the Council of Europe has a day that forgets about the Council of Europe, and it should we could celebrate as well. He is now reverting back to really be consigned to a dustbin. 9 May, thereby reversing the points that he made in his earlier speech, and I will therefore set them aisde. Lord Duncan of Springbank: My Lords, this is a Importantly, we are recognising that in Northern more controversial issue than might have been anticipated Ireland—as anywhere else in the UK—flags are a by those who do not know Northern Ireland well or sensitive issue. They are heavily regulated. Failure to indeed the passions of noble Lords here gathered; do so has led not only to mistrust but to civil unrest. GC 369 Flags Regulations 2019 [LORDS] Flags Regulations 2019 GC 370

[LORD DUNCAN OF SPRINGBANK] the flying of flags. Nowhere else have we had to do so. We must treat the reality in Northern Ireland with Nowhere else at council level would we anticipate caution. This is why the adjustment to flying the flags anything other than the flying of flags which people on different days, or recognising—as we have not been wish to fly, whether they be a union flag, a European able to do in Northern Ireland—the additional members Union flag or flags for other particular purposes. This of the Royal Family who are entitled to certain flag flying will no doubt continue. Here we are talking about a days, cannot happen without the express involvement very strict and specific piece of legislation which affects of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is absolutely only Northern Ireland. appropriate, given how sensitive this matter is. We are conflating two issues: Europe and Northern Lord Deben: I am sorry to interrupt my noble Ireland. When we look back to the period 1998 to friend. If we changed this, we would have to go 2000 in Northern Ireland, we begin to recognise that through a whole system. I understand that. It was a the flags issue was not only live, but dangerous. Therefore, little unfair of him to complain that I was prepared to we have always tried to move this forward inside say that if he found that difficult, we might do it in a Northern Ireland with permission. In this instance, we different way. It seems very odd that that we are are making a correction and ensuring that the whole removing this without going through that system. We United Kingdom is treated in the same manner. have not asked all the people who have to be asked if This brings me to the point raised by the noble we going to put something else in but we are unilaterally Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. Guidance issued by deciding to take this day out. I find that difficult. one of the Whitehall departments is different because I started off by saying that I have been through it is not bound by regulation, as these regulations those debates and I know them perfectly well. I got apply to Northern Ireland. They are not needed here into a lot of trouble with my unionist friends because I because they are not as controversial. There will be no fought for what the Government wanted. I am perfectly restriction on the flying of the flag of Europe in many aware of the difficulty in the north of Ireland, but is it places at council level, wherever they wish to do so. acceptable to remove something without that process, The actual designation of official flag flying days is when it is not acceptable to add or change something heavily regulated in Northern Ireland. We are only about that process? It seems unacceptable to do this correcting for the reality that Europe Day will not be unilaterally. celebrated in Northern Ireland because it is the flag of Lord Duncan of Springbank: The noble Lord, sitting membership of the EU and that will not be true as he does in a legislature, will appreciate the difference thereafter. between making law and interpreting how you fly Lord Bruce of Bennachie: I am not clear from the flags. At present, the difficulty he speaks of is not just Minister’s initial remarks whether he is saying that the a difficulty but an illegality: that we would not be able flag may be flown this year. First of all, if the longer to move forward by adjusting the dates in Northern departure date occurs, we will still be a member of the Ireland because of the restrictions of the law. What we European Union on 5 or 9 May. I had the impression might wish to do beyond that may be described as a he said that, in any case, they could fly this year. If difficulty, but what we seek to do here is to be legally that is true, we can forget about this for another year correct in this instance. I am aware that the noble Lord anyway, by which time we can address all the other has been passionate in his defence of the union flag issues. and the union flag in Northern Ireland. I am also aware of how controversial that flag has been in Lord Duncan of Springbank: I fear that the noble Northern Ireland, for many different reasons. Lord has misunderstood my points. If I may, I will The European Union flag we have flown on the restate and re-emphasise them. I said that this regulation ninth, which is flown across Europe, is primarily a flag will come in only after we have exited the European of membership of the EU. Wedo not fly it in recognition Union. As the noble Lord will be aware, the point at of our membership of the Council of Europe because, which we exit the European Union is not yet clear. If most of the time—if I am being frank as a former that date is after 9 May, then the flag will fly this year Member of the European Parliament—people were because that regulation will not be amendable. This rarely aware of the distinction between the Council of order amends it only after the point of exit. That is Europe and the European Council and the fact that why for this year—I am being very frank—it is unclear one preceded the other by several decades. Even today, whether the flag will fly as per the regulations within very few people marching on these streets will necessarily the amended 2000 order. Up until that point, I cannot draw that distinction. give any greater clarity. We are doing this now because One of the great sins,I suspect, of this country—indeed, we are able to do it under the existing legislation in perhaps of our media—is how often we have been order to correct the situation following the European unable to explain in clear terms how the EU works, Union (Withdrawal) Act. how our responsibilities within the Council of Europe There may come a time when those in Northern work and the difference between the European Court Ireland wish to reflect on which flags they fly and of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. when they wish to fly them—I have little doubt about We conflate these things constantly and I am fully that—but until the Assembly comes together to determine aware that people right now will probably be unaware that, it will be unable to that matter forward. I note that the Council of Europe and in the EU, one heavily how important this matter has been and I state again, predating the other, have the same flag and, indeed, a as carefully as I can, that Northern Ireland is the only shared anthem—and have had for some time, albeit part of this kingdom in which we have had to regulate that in the EU it is an unofficial anthem. All these GC 371 Flags Regulations 2019 [25 MARCH 2019] Flags Regulations 2019 GC 372 things become conflated. The reality we face is simple: Irish Members will turn up but we do not have a under the EU withdrawal agreement that we moved balanced representation in the Chamber. The second forward last year,this piece of legislation is uncontentious. point I want to make is that Europe Day is about It is important to stress that the European statutory peace in Europe, not the European Union. instruments committee of this House said that, as a matter of policy, there is nothing contentious in the Lord Duncan of Springbank: I am very clear about amendments proposed by this instrument. what Europe Day represents, having been a Member of the European Parliament. I have spent a great deal Lord Bruce of Bennachie: It is wrong. of my life—10 years—in Europe representing the Scottish Parliament in Europe. I am fully aware of what Europe Day represents. I am also a Minister in the Northern Lord Duncan of Springbank: It may be, and the noble Ireland Office, so I know what flags mean in Northern Lord may wish to bring that up with that committee. Ireland and I do not think we should be conflating the It may well be that he wishes, on this occasion, to two in the manner the noble Lord suggests, but if he is determine what flags shall be flown in Northern Ireland, minded to do so that is his prerogative and his right. I to take that decision and move this in a particular remind him only that this is a matter primarily about direction. I would counsel against that for many different the union flag, not the European flag. reasons, not least that, as we have said before, this issue is much more sensitive in Northern Ireland and we must be careful as we look at it in Northern The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Ireland, particularly as it primarily concerns the union Pitkeathley) (Lab): I clarify for the noble Lord that flag. I stress again that it affects the union flag more although we do not vote in Grand Committee, I will than the flag nobly described by the noble Lord, take the voices.The Question is that the Grand Committee Lord Bruce of Bennachie. do consider the Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The challenges we face are straightforward. We may take this order and move it forward. The noble Lord may decide that is not something he wishes to do Lord Touhig: Not content. and he may wish to debate it further. If we are to debate this further, I suggest that we make sure that there are Lord Bruce of Bennachie: Not content. a number of Members in that debate who hail from Northern Ireland and are able to give their experience The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must remind on the issue of flags because this is not primarily an the Grand Committee that a single call of “Not content” issue about European flags but an issue about what has the effect of negativing the Motion. With that in flags represent in Northern Ireland. I suspect that he is mind, I put the Question again. not liking what I am saying but I fear I am going to have to move forward on that basis. Lord Touhig: Not content.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie: I seek guidance from the Lord Bruce of Bennachie: Not content. Chair. I have indicated that I am not happy and I do not wish this to be accepted. I know we cannot vote Motion negatived. but I think it should be debated in the Chamber. We have a problem with the Chamber: I am sure that the Committee adjourned at 7.39 pm.