Vol. 799 Wednesday No. 349 2 October 2019

PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDEROFBUSINESS

Questions Development Aid: Pakistan...... 1669 Special Adviser Appointments...... 1671 Facial Recognition Technology...... 1673 Brexit: Medicines and Medical Devices...... 1676 Brexit Motion to Take Note ...... 1678 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/2019-10-02

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/. 1669 Development Aid: Pakistan [2 OCTOBER 2019] Development Aid: Pakistan 1670

House of Lords guarantee to this House today that not a single penny of the CSSF has been used to indirectly support the Wednesday 2 October 2019 death penalty in Pakistan in any way?

3 pm The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is perfectly aware, we condemn the death penalty wherever and by whoever it is used anywhere Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle. in the world. We cannot support this barbaric penalty. I cannot give individual details on that programme, but I will ensure that that information gets to the Development Aid: Pakistan noble Baroness. I should also point out that the rule of Question law is paramount. For example, in the Asia Bibi case we are very pleased to see Pakistan’s commitment to 3.06 pm the rule of law following the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s decision in January this year to uphold Asia Bibi’s Asked by Lord Harries of Pentregarth acquittal on blasphemy charges. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will take steps to ensure that the United Kingdom’s Baroness Sheehan (LD): My Lords, the Coalition development aid supports the most vulnerable for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development— minorities, particularly in Pakistan. CREID—was recently set up, tasked with looking at how poverty reduction efforts can actively support inclusive and religiously diverse communities, which I The Earl of Courtown (Con): My Lords, UK aid am sure we all welcome. I understand that CREID is prioritises the most vulnerable, excluded and funded by UK aid. Can the Minister say where oversight disadvantaged, including those caught in crises and of it lies within government and how its effectiveness those most at risk of violence and discrimination. is being monitored? I am happy to receive a response Promoting tolerance and inclusion is a core principle in writing. across our Pakistan programme and we also have programmes specifically supporting minorities. We The Earl of Courtown: I thank the noble Baroness regularly raise the needs of minority communities for that question and will confirm in writing the exact with the Government of Pakistan. details she asks for. I should add that DfID’s Pakistan education programme is our largest bilateral education Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB): I thank the Minister programme, having supported nearly 10 million children for his reply, particularly for saying that DfID focuses in primary education and 5.8 million in secondary on the most vulnerable, but in Pakistan this is simply education since 2011. It is also important to note that not happening. There are communities there which are other practical support for education includes improving twice distinguished by their poverty; first, on religious the teacher training curriculum, including modules on grounds, as either Hindus or Christians; secondly, equity and inclusion. because they are Dalits. Of course, if they are women, they are discriminated against on a third ground. Is it Lord Elton (Con): My Lords, if the answer to my not possible for DfID to disaggregate its aid in order question is not in his answer to the previous questioner, to identify, focus on and target such minorities? will my noble friend undertake to let us know through the Library or whatever other means what proportion of the money that this country gives to Pakistan every The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble and year is devoted to focused targets on the most needy, right reverend Lord makes a very good point about and what proportion of it is not predicated on any ensuring that we target aid to the people who need it. requirement for any standard treatment of justice and DfID Pakistan continues to review its support to poor the rule of law? and marginalised people in Pakistan and we aim to better disaggregate our results data in future. Werecently The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, our DfID had some success in collecting more and better-quality programme this year has amounted to £300 million. data on people with disabilities in Pakistan, and this The important point to remember on this is that DfID also picked up other minorities. We have learned from is active in making the case that the most stable that and will build on it to focus our energy on societies are those which uphold the right to freedom collecting data from these other groups. of religion and belief. The stability of the whole country is reflected in that. We also regularly challenge our Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): My Lords, the partners to demonstrate that they are doing all they Minister will be aware that a key part of our support can to meet the needs of the most vulnerable people, for Pakistan is the CSSF’s rule of law programme, including religious minorities. The point of this aid is which aims to increase Pakistan’s civilian capacity to to target those minority groups, and that is what we investigate, detain, prosecute and try terrorists. He will are doing. also be aware that Pakistan routinely uses the death penalty, including against those who are alleged to Lord West of Spithead (Lab): My Lords, does the have committed terrorism offences as juveniles. He Minister not agree that part of the problem—I came talks about targeting how aid is used, so can he across this with two big schemes I was involved with in 1671 Development Aid: Pakistan[LORDS] Special Adviser Appointments 1672

[LORD WEST OF SPITHEAD] Earl Howe: My Lords, as I just said, my noble Pakistan—is corruption? The amount of money that friend will understand that I cannot comment on trickles down to where you want it to have effect has personnel matters relating to individuals. I can say in by then gone through layer after layer of provincial general terms that, in line with the Constitutional governors and others who, I fear, have sticky fingers, Reform and Governance Act 2010, special advisers and is very small. How can we ensure that DfID operate under the authority of their appointing Minister. money actually hits the people who really need it, Therefore, special advisers in No. 10 act under the rather than feeding corruption? authority of the Prime Minister. Section 8 of the 2010 Act also allows special advisers to exercise any power in relation to the management of another special The Earl of Courtown: The noble Lord makes a adviser if permitted by the Code of Conduct for very good point: targeting aid to those minority groups Special Advisers. The code of conduct does so permit. is useless if it will not reach them in the first place. One of the primary aims of the department is to ensure that the aid targeted at those minority groups actually Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB): My Lords, it is the reaches them. That is kept continually under review. right of civil servants, if dismissal is contemplated, to have access to a disciplinary board before a conclusion is reached. Is that available to special advisers, and was Lord Lexden (Con): My Lords— it available in this case?

Noble Lords: Time! Earl Howe: I cannot comment on this case, but the status of special advisers is set out in legislation in the 2010 Act to which I referred. Because of the Crown’s Special Adviser Appointments power to dismiss at will, special advisers are not entitled to a period of statutory notice when their appointment Question is terminated. However, the terms of their employment are set out in their model contract. 3.14 pm Asked by Lord Young of Cookham Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): My Lords, I will ask the Minister two questions. Given the report in the To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Daily Telegraph that Sonia Khan was later offered a correct procedures were followed in the dismissal of pay-off of around £40,000 following her treatment, Sonia Khan as a special adviser. does he consider that an appropriate use of public money? I also refer him to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, this time paragraph 14, which says: Earl Howe (Con): My Lords, the Government do “Special advisers must not take public part in political not comment on personnel matters regarding individuals. controversy… They must observe discretion and express comment Special advisers are temporary civil servants appointed with moderation”. in accordance with Part 1 of the Constitutional Reform Does he consider that the Prime Minister’s special and Governance Act 2010. They are bound by the adviser is abiding by that or, as journalists have been Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and the terms told, is this just “classic Dom” and supposed to be of the Model Contract for Special Advisers, which sets tolerated? out how special advisers are appointed and leave their role. Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot comment on the reported offer of a payout, as I hope the noble Baroness Lord Young of Cookham (Con): Noble Lords will will understand. Having said that, the model special recall that on 29 August Sonia Khan was summarily adviser contract sets out severance arrangements for dismissed by Mr Cummings and shown to the front when special advisers’ contracts end, as I intimated to door of No. 10 by an armed officer. Paragraph 3.3 of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. As I mentioned, all the Ministerial Code, which was updated on 23 August special advisers must adhere to the Code of Conduct this year, says: for Special Advisers, which applies across the board to “The responsibility for the management and conduct of special every special adviser in government. They are also advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made bound by the standards of integrity and honesty required the appointment”. of all civil servants, as set out in the Civil Service The Chancellor knew nothing of this, so under what Code. authority did Mr Cummings—a man who was summoned to give evidence to a Select Committee in another Lord Addington (LD): My Lords, I will keep this place, told the chairman to “get lost” and was then simple. Does the Minister accept that the behaviour in found to be in contempt of Parliament—dismiss Sonia the Sonia Khan case must never be seen as some form Khan? Finally, on treatment of special advisers, was it of precedent for the way these people are treated? It appropriate for Mr Cummings to say to his fellow must never happen again. special advisers: “If you don’t like how I run things, there’s the door”? Earl Howe: My Lords, No. 10 has always been If he continues to act in this arrogant manner, should involved in the performance management and appraisal that invitation not be extended to Mr Cummings? of special advisers and other personnel management 1673 Special Adviser Appointments[2 OCTOBER 2019] Facial Recognition Technology 1674 issues. Disciplinary matters fall under the heading of The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams performance management. That reflects long-standing of Trafford) (Con): My Lords, the judgment in the practice. It is also set out in successive versions of the South Wales Police case confirms that there is a clear Ministerial Code. and sufficient legal framework for the police to use live facial recognition. We will keep governance under Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con): My Lords, are not review and work with the police and others to ensure special advisers appointed to assist their Secretaries of that public trust and confidence in the police’s use of State and Ministers in the performance of their duties? new technology are maintained. What on earth is the purpose of Dominic Cummings holding meetings with all the special advisers, who Lord Strasburger: I thank the Minister for that should be responsible to their Secretaries of State and reply. The Government have previously confirmed not to him? that this highly intrusive technology is being deployed in a legal vacuum. Alarmingly,we have recently discovered Earl Howe: My Lords, the 2010 Act, to which I that private companies have for years been secretly referred, says that all appointments of special advisers using automated facial recognition in public spaces, must be approved by the Prime Minister and that the and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has Prime Minister mayterminate the contract by withdrawing warned that we are sleepwalking into an “Orwellian his consent at any time. That is also made clear in the … police state” and called for a code of ethics and a Ministerial Code. strict legal framework. Parliament must provide these. In the meantime, will the Government impose a Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab): My Lords,paragraph 11 moratorium on the use of this intrusive technology? of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers states: “Any special adviser found to be disseminating inappropriate Baroness Williams of Trafford: The Government do material will be subject to a disciplinary process”. not intend to place a moratorium on the technology’s Can I ask the Minister about the process? What is the use, but the noble Lord is right that such use needs to process that should have been applied, or that should be carefully governed and be in line with the law and be applied in these cases more generally? human rights, and with a clear oversight framework. Use of the technology in the private sector—the noble Earl Howe: My Lords, the terms of employment for Lord might have alluded to this—is currently being any special adviser, as I have said, are set in their looked at by the ICO. model contract. They are bound by the Code of Conduct. The process will depend on the terms of that contract. Dominic Cummings is ultimately accountable to the Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con): Will the Prime Minister for his conduct, as is the case for all Minister consider the utter incompetence of the private special advisers. and public companies which create facial recognition technology? You have these machines and you pay a vast sum of money for them, but when you put your Lord Hayward (Con): My Lords, is it not acutely face on them, they cannot recognise you for anything. embarrassing to this Government that they have put Is it not better to press for the improvement of the Parliament in a position whereby it is granting a pass system rather than trying to clamp down on something to somebody who is deemed to be in contempt of it? I that is in no way ready to be used properly yet? hope that any compensation to Sonia Khan comes not from the pocket of the taxpayer, but from Dominic Cummings. Baroness Williams of Trafford: I hate to differ on this with my noble friend, but e-gate technology is in Earl Howe: My Lords, that is clearly not a matter fact superb at matching facial recognition to passports—in for me. some cases, better than humans. However, the human eye in these things is of course not to be dismissed and it can detect all sorts of other things in terms of Facial Recognition Technology e-gates. Question

3.22 pm Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB): My Lords, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner reported in July Tabled by Lord Clement-Jones that not only facial recognition but gait analysis, lip- reading technology, algorithms that can predict fights To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans and sensors that can detect explosives and radiation they have to regulate the use of facial recognition are all in development and all linked to surveillance technology. cameras. Given the enormous potential of those developments, both positive and negative, and the Lord Strasburger (LD): My Lords, on behalf of my need for trust on the part of the public, will the noble friend Lord Clement-Jones,and with his permission, Government commission an independent review, with I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name clear parameters, into how, if at all, such investigatory on the Order Paper. I remind the House of my interest powers should be used and how that use should be as chair of Big Brother Watch. supervised in the public interest? Does she agree with 1675 Facial Recognition Technology[LORDS] Brexit: Medicines and Medical Devices 1676

[LORD ANDERSON OF IPSWICH] Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab): My Lords, surely the problem the commissioner that there is a case for placing the is that the law in this area is deficient. It is very oversight of all these powers with the existing Investigatory difficult to balance the utility of the technology against Powers Commissioner’s Office? the intrusion on personal rights. Does the Minister not agree that the debate should be held in Parliament Baroness Williams of Trafford: I agree with the and, to that end, that the Government should commit noble Lord that the emergence of these new technologies to bringing forward a robust legislative framework for necessitates a very careful approach. The live facial consideration? recognition technology is currently being trialled rather than fully rolled out, so we need to be very careful Baroness Williams of Trafford: As I said before, we about it. In terms of oversight, the Surveillance Camera must proceed very carefully with such developing Commissioner has provided guidance for the police. technologies. It is very important that the police have We have established an oversight board, and the police clear legal frameworks within which to operate. are bringing forward proposals for new trials. We are However—not one month ago—the High Court said working with the police on the development of national that there is a sufficient legal framework for police use operational guidance, which will capture the lessons of facial recognition technology. This consists of learned, as well as best practice. However, the noble common-law powers, data protection and human rights Lord is absolutely right: with all these new technologies, legislation, and the surveillance camera code. we need to tread with extreme care and balance their proportionate use with the interests of the public. Brexit: Medicines and Medical Devices Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab): My Lords, I refer to Question my interests as listed in the register. Is it not the case that the genie is out of the bottle as far as many of 3.30 pm these technologies are concerned? They are in current use in the private sector, as well as being used by Asked by Baroness Thornton investigatory agencies. Can the Minister confirm the regulatory frameworks for the use of these technologies To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps which apply and which are legally binding on the they are taking to safeguard the supply of medicines private sector, and will the Government give an and medical devices in the event of a no-deal Brexit. undertaking that the police and the other agencies will not be disadvantaged compared with the private sector Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, the Department for in accessing and using these technologies? Health and Social Care is doing everything possible to prepare for an exit from the European Union, whatever Baroness Williams of Trafford: The noble Lord the circumstances. We have worked with trade bodies, makes a good point. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord product suppliers and the health and care system Anderson, the use of this technology is being looked throughout the UK and have made great progress at by the ICO. It has launched an investigation following towards ensuring continuity of supply to the whole of concerns about the use of LFR by managers of shopping the UK and its Crown dependencies. I reassure patients malls in and around King’s Cross. I have explained the that our plans to ensure the uninterrupted supply of oversight process to the noble Lord but, as I said to medicines and medical products when we leave the EU other noble Lords, it is very important that the technology are as solid as possible. is used proportionately and within the law, and of course the court judgment last month confirmed that that was the case. Baroness Thornton (Lab): I thank the Minister for his Answer. This Question was prompted by the National Audit Office report published last week, which justified Lord Paddick (LD): My Lords, is the Minister not considerable concern among NHS workers and patients concerned that using custody image databases that about the availability of basic medicines if the UK include pictures of unconvicted people in conjunction crashes out of the European Union. with facial recognition technology is potentially a I wish to raise two specific concerns with the Minister. breach of innocent people’s human rights? Is this not It seems likely that the availability of the flu vaccine another reason why the Government need to take will be affected by a no-deal exit. Andrew Goddard, action? the president of the Royal College of Physicians, said: “I can’t … say, ‘Don’t worry, no deal will be fine, no one is Baroness Williams of Trafford: It might be helpful going to come to any harm, no one is going to run out of to the noble Lord if I outlined the types of people who medicines.’ What we can see is we’re likely to not have enough flu could be on a watch list. They are persons wanted on vaccine … and that is likely to have an impact on the NHS”. warrants, individuals who are unlawfully at large, persons So will the Minister inform the House whether the suspected of having committed crimes, persons who department has a plan to deal with this eventuality might be in need of protection, individuals whose and, if so, what it is? Secondly, what is the plan for the presence at an event causes particular concern, and of availability of medicines and treatments that cannot course vulnerable persons—we must not lose sight of be stockpiled, such as isotopes, which are vital for the fact that the technology can be incredibly useful in cancer treatment and which by definition have a short detecting vulnerable people. shelf life? 1677 Brexit: Medicines and Medical Devices [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1678

Lord Bethell: The noble Baroness makes a very fair the European Union, they will not allow the clinical point about concerns about easily diminished medicines trials regulation to become an impediment to the such as vaccines and isotopes. I reassure her that plans orderly flow of medicines and medical devices? are very well advanced to provide adequate stocks. The Government have procured a buffer stock of Lord Bethell: Clinical trials are one area of particular 400,000 adult vaccines, and a large number of measures concern for the supply of medicines, which has therefore have been put in place, including the use of air freight, been an area of great focus. Special measures have the search for alternative vaccines where necessary been put in place to ensure the adequate supply of and the central stockpiling of very large numbers of medicines to ensure that existing medical trials can medical supplies. continue whatever the circumstances, including in the case of a no-deal Brexit. On isotopes, the Government recognise the concerns raised over the transport of products with short lives Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl): My Lords, the Minister such as radioisotopes, which is why we have put in may be aware that there has been an extreme shortage place a range of measures. These plans are being of EpiPens, which treat anaphylactic shocks and severe developed in close collaboration with the relevant allergic reactions. Will the Minister assure the House manufacturers, NHS experts and other relevant that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, significant departments. attention will be given to ensure that enough EpiPens are available for the treatment of anaphylactic shocks Baroness Walmsley (LD): My Lords, in my local and allergic reactions? pharmacy there is a poster on the wall asking patients not to blame pharmacy staff for the current shortages Lord Bethell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness of medicines and medical devices. While accepting for bringing to the House’s attention the shortage of that it is not the pharmacies’ fault, can the Minister EpiPens. It is not a situation I am aware of in particular, say whose fault it is? but I reassure her that medical devices have exactly the same scrutiny and focus as medicines, and that they will be very much part of the process of ensuring Lord Bethell: The noble Baroness makes a very fair sufficient supplies in the case of a no-deal Brexit. point that touches on the challenge of medical supplies that we live with whatever the circumstances, whether Brexit exists or not. Medical shortages happen and are Lord Tebbit (Con): My Lords, can my noble friend part of the life of the NHS. If anything, this preparation help me? I cannot understand who these wicked people for a no-deal Brexit has shone a light on our arrangements are who noble Lords opposite think would try to hold for medical supplies, and they have never been in up the supply of these vital drugs and other materials. better shape. One of the advantages of the process Why would they do it? What would be their motive? that we have gone through is to improve the circumstances. Who are they? Who are these mysterious and wicked However, as the noble Baroness pointed out, shortages people who will be so angry about Brexit that they will do happen in every country in Europe, including Britain. want to take it out on sick people in the British Isles? But I predict that these will happen less and less because of the investment of time and resources into Lord Bethell: My noble friend makes a fair point— understanding our medical supplies. Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Lansley (Con): My Lords, on precisely that Lord Bethell: The Government are aware that there point, my noble friend will be aware that, as he said, is a high degree of public concern on this important shortages of medicines are occurring across Europe. issue. We are also aware that the supply of medicines That was highlighted in the latter part of last year and medical devices is an extremely complicated process, when a survey of 1,600 hospital pharmacists across which may have been overlooked in the past. However, Europe found that 92% were experiencing shortages, thanks to the dry run in March and the ongoing particularly of antibiotics, vaccines and cancer drugs. efforts of officials, which I commend and pay tribute So this is an opportunity to secure greater long-term to, it has never been in better shape. resilience in medicine supply in this country if we work with other Governments across Europe. Will the Government commit to doing that? Brexit Motion to Take Note Lord Bethell: The Government are working very closely with European partners on the supply of medicines. 3.37 pm As my noble friend will be aware, a large proportion of Moved by Lord Callanan the medical supplies in this country originate from our To move that this House takes note of the United European partners, and therefore that collaboration is Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. absolutely essential. The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the Lord Kakkar (CB): My Lords, I declare my interests European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con): My Lords, the as in the register. Are Her Majesty’s Government able Motion before us today asks the House to once again to confirm that, whatever the nature of our exit from consider the UK’s withdrawal from the EU—which 1679 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1680

[LORD CALLANAN] on 31 October must avoid the whole of the UK or just will take place on 31 October, with or without a deal. Northern Ireland being trapped in an arrangement Of course, this House and its committees have been where they are a rule taker. considering this topic with great scrutiny and interest These discussions with the Commission and EU ever since the 2016 referendum. I pay tribute to the leaders have intensified, with regular sessions taking stamina and continued focus of noble Lords in fulfilling place over a number of weeks. The Prime Minister’s this vital constitutional role. EU sherpa, David Frost, has continued to lead a The Government are committed to delivering on cross-party team for these detailed discussions with this instruction from the British people without any the Commission’s Taskforce 50, in line with the Prime further pointless delay. The outcome that we want, Minister and President of the European Commission’s and have always wanted, is a deal with the European agreement to intensify the pace of discussions. Within Union—but if we cannot agree a new deal, we will the last couple of hours in Brussels, he has delivered to have to leave without one. the EU the UK’s proposals on a replacement to the backstop. These are the proposals which we have laid I must commend noble Lords, including the noble in Parliament today. Baroness, Lady Hayter, on their excellent timing in I know that your Lordships will probably not have scheduling this debate today; events are indeed unfolding had the time or opportunity to read the document fairly rapidly as we speak. I first highlight to noble published a short while ago. I will therefore set out the Lords that, a short while ago, we published details of main points of the Prime Minister’s offer to the EU. the Government’s proposals for alternatives to the First, this proposal is based above all on our commitment backstop. A copy of the Written Ministerial Statement to find solutions which are compatible with the Belfast and supporting documentation is now available for agreement, the fundamental basis for governance in noble Lords to collect from the Printed Paper Office. Northern Ireland. I recognise, of course, that noble Lords would like Secondly,it confirms our commitment to long-standing to take time to review and consider the content of the areas of UK-Ireland collaboration: the common travel WMS and documents, the details of which I will set area; the rights of all those living in Northern Ireland; out in a moment. Before I do that, I reassure noble and north/south co-operation. Lords by confirming that they will have the opportunity Thirdly, the proposal provides for the creation of to discuss this further in a Statement tomorrow. an all-island regulatory zone on the island of Ireland, This Government have made considerable progress covering all goods and eliminating regulatory checks in their negotiations with the EU. We have been working for trade in goods between Northern Ireland and hard to negotiate changes to the withdrawal agreement Ireland. and political declaration. The Prime Minister has Fourthly, and unlike the backstop, this regulatory been clear on the nature of these changes. We are zone will be dependent on the consent of those affected unconditionally committed to finding a solution for by it. This is essential to the acceptability of arrangements the north/south border which protects the Belfast under which part of the UK accepts the rules of a agreement, the commitments of which can best be met different political entity. In our view, it is fundamental if we explore solutions other than the backstop. The to democracy. The Government therefore propose that backstop risks— the continuation of the regulatory zone after the transition period will be subject to the principle of consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Lord Hain (Lab): Will the noble Lord confirm, in the light of the Prime Minister’s speech earlier today Fifthly, the proposal ensures that Northern Ireland and the proposals that have just been published, that will be fully part of the UK customs territory, not the effectively the Government are saying, “Wewon’t impose EU customs territory, after the end of the transition border controls of a customs check character at or period. It has always been a fundamental point for this near the border, but since that border is the external Government that the UK will leave the EU customs customs union frontier of the European Union and union at the end of the transition period, since control the Republic of Ireland, it is up to them to do it”? Is of trade policy is fundamental to this country’s future that not a despicable, pass-the-parcel, grubby approach prosperity. to all this? Finally,in order to support Northern Ireland through our withdrawal from the EU, and in collaboration with others with an interest, this Government propose Lord Callanan: The noble Lord makes his point in a new deal for Northern Ireland, with appropriate his normal forthright manner. If he has a little patience, commitments to help boost economic growth and I will come to the details of our proposals in a little Northern Ireland’s competitiveness, and to support while. infrastructure projects, particularly with a cross-border The backstop risks weakening the delicate balance focus.Taken together,these proposals respect the decision embodied in the Belfast agreement between both major taken by the people of the UK to leave the EU while traditions in Northern Ireland, grounded in agreement, dealing pragmatically with that decision’s consequences consent and respect for minority rights. Removing in Northern Ireland and in Ireland. Together, we believe control of areas of the commercial and economic life that these will allow us to reach agreement with the of Northern Ireland to an external body over which EU under Article 50 and to leave the EU with a deal the people of Northern Ireland have no control risks that both respects the referendum result and provides undermining that balance. Any deal ahead of Brexit a strong platform for our future relationship. 1681 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1682

As I am sure noble Lords will agree, leaving the EU where we are because the Supreme Court particularly with a deal on 31 October is the preferable outcome. recognised that this House too had a role in holding However, we have stepped up preparations across the Government to account, part of our responsibility government and will be fully ready for Brexit on under our constitution. 31 October whatever the circumstances.As the Chancellor During the short period since that decision, much of the Duchy of Lancaster made clear in his Statements has already been said, and I am sure much will be said to the other place, and as I repeated in this House last today by noble Lords and that their words will be wise month on 3 September and again on 25 September, we and informative. We will also have to deal with and have indeed ramped up our no-deal preparations. The comment on the new information that the Minister Government are committed to prioritising stability for has just provided, and I will come back to that in a citizens, consumers, businesses and the economy. I moment. However, I shall concentrate on two particular know that many noble Lords have previously raised matters. Assuming that this new proposed deal does the important issue of citizens’ rights. I yet again not get either support from Parliament or agreement reassure noble Lords that this Government are clear from the EU, what are the Government going to do? that citizens’ rights will never be used as a bargaining That is what I want to spend a few minutes on, chip. That is why the Prime Minister has provided an particularly on how the Government intend to achieve unequivocal guarantee to the more than 3 million EU what they, including the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, citizens living and working in the UK that they can have repeatedly said: that they will comply with the have absolute certainty of the right to live and remain law yet still leave on 31 October. in the UK whether we leave with or without a deal. Under the EU settlement scheme, over 1.5 million EU That mantra of compliance has been much repeated, citizens have secured their future in the UK, and the but we still do not know what the Government mean. Home Office continues to process up to 20,000 applications This will be the third time that I have raised the per day. question in the House. Of course, it is not a question As well as the smooth flow of people from the UK of generalised compliance, or compliance with the law into the EU and vice versa, our economic priorities in general, but of how the Government will comply include ensuring the continued flow of goods. The with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act. Government have committed to a number of steps in That is what has been termed by the Prime Minister order to do this. For example, we have committed to the “surrender Act”, which is his favoured term. Language introducing temporary easements for traders and hauliers is powerful, as the Prime Minister in particular, as an to smooth the transition to new controls; and to experienced journalist, knows; but that is a misuse of maintain continuity of trade, we have signed or agreed language and a dangerous one, as colleagues have in principle 15 trade continuity agreements to date, pointed out, particularly in the other place. Language covering 45 countries and accounting for 72% of the has been a political tool, at least ever since Erik the trade for which we are seeking continuity in a no-deal Red misnamed frozen Greenland to attract more settlers Brexit. The work that we are taking forward will to his new land. This Act in fact surrenders nothing. It ensure that businesses are ready for exit. is Parliament which, in the Act, has set the date of an extension of three months, which is to be triggered. The precise impacts of a no-deal Brexit are of If the EU accepts that date, then that is the extension. course difficult to predict but we have taken steps to If the EU proposes another date, that has no effect define the potential impact and develop reasonable unless Parliament accepts it. So it is Parliament that is worst-case planning assumptions upon which we can in control. If there has to be a nickname for this, other build our contingency plans. Operation Yellowhammer than the Benn Act, the “parliamentary sovereignty is the cross-government programme of work to ensure Act” would be a more appropriate name. that the Government are prepared to mitigate the potential impacts of Brexit in the event that the UK Let us look for a moment at what compliance with leaves without a deal. the Act means. It means more than a bare adherence The Government are ready for and committed to to the minimal interpretation of the words of the law; withdrawal from the EU, with or without a deal, on it means an acceptance, too, of the spirit of the 31 October and without further pointless delay. We law—what Parliament, what we, intended by the law. have ramped up all our preparations to deliver that. So what are the Government actually doing? From all This Government are clear that people want to see the statements that have been made, it looks as though, Brexit delivered by 31 October, and we are determined if the Government cannot get this deal through, either to deliver on their wishes. I beg to move. with the EU or in the other place, they are looking for a way to circumvent the law, to try to find a way round it. We expect more from people in high office. We 3.47 pm expect good faith and respect for the spirit of the law. Lord Goldsmith (Lab): My Lords, this is the first Mr Johnson has impoverished our society and our full opportunity that this House has had to debate politics with his unlawful scheme to shut Parliament Brexit since the Supreme Court told the Prime Minister up. Let us hope that he does not impoverish it further unanimously that his Prorogation plan was, by looking for shoddy tricks or shabby stratagems to “unlawful, null and of no effect”, get round what Parliament has ordained. because it had the effect, in their view, of frustrating or What will the Government do? The internet has preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in been buzzing with different ideas of loopholes and holding the Government to account. It is right that workarounds. There are none. As the former Supreme this House should have the opportunity to debate Court Justice, Lord Sumption, said on the BBC, the 1683 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1684

[LORD GOLDSMITH] Another idea which has been floated, and apparently courts disfavour finding loopholes. The earliest of the attributed to the Foreign Secretary, is that the Benn “loopholes” suggested was that the Prime Minister Act somehow conflicts with EU law. There is a lovely could accompany the letter of request that he is obliged irony in the Government relying on EU law to get out to send with another letter saying that he does not of this particular problem. However,I do not understand want an extension at all. However, that would clearly the argument at all. It is no way inconsistent with be contrary to the Act. The Act requires that he Article 50 to ask for and agree extensions to the should “seek an extension”, and you do not seek an leaving date. That is what we have done at least once extension if, at the same time as asking for it, you say, already, and it is fully consistent with Article 50. All “Please don’t give it”, or keep your fingers crossed the Benn Act does is require that a request for an behind your back, as in the playground. This is not extension is made if certain conditions are fulfilled: playground politics. namely, that the Government have not persuaded the My first question to the Minister, when he winds, is other place to agree to a deal that they have reached or on what reassurance he can give about what the to agree that we can leave without a deal. What is Government plan to do in the event that this new more, although I do not think it arises, Article 50 proposal does not meet favour with the EU or with the requires our notice to leave to be given in accordance other place. Let me spell out the question more clearly with our constitutional traditions. That is what has so that there is no room for misunderstanding or, happened. If it further required that extensions should forgive me for saying so, evasion. The Government say be requested in accordance with those traditions, that that they will comply with the law yet leave on 31 October. has happened too, because it is pursuant to an Act of The Act allows two ways in which that can happen. Parliament passed by both Houses that the Prime First, if, by 19 October, a deal has been agreed with the Minister will be required to make this request. EU—it will have to be this deal, according to what the I will not deal with other suggested loopholes, save noble Lord has said—which the House of Commons to say that all, in my view, are wrong. However, even has approved and, indeed, this House has debated too. though they are wrong, dealing with such arguments Or, if the Commons has agreed that we can leave will take time. The worry is that the Government will without a deal and, again, this House debates that run down the clock so that there is inadequate time to question as well. The clear question becomes: if, by get decisions from either Parliament or the courts. 19 October,neither of those things has happened—there Therefore, I am not surprised to read that other legal has been no agreed and approved deal and the House actions are already being planned. Clear answers from of Commons has not agreed that we can leave without the Government today could help to render those a deal—will the Prime Minister “seek to obtain” an unnecessary, so we look forward to hearing what the extension under Article 50(3), as the Act requires? Minister will say in winding up. Secondly, and importantly, will the Government agree The second issue I will raise—the Minister touched not to undermine the request by second letters or on this in his remarks, but I want to probe him a little other messages or statements which contradict the further—is what the consequences of a no-deal Brexit request? would be. If the House of Commons is to approve a One of the most disturbing suggestions that we no-deal Brexit, clearly the Government are under an have heard in recent days is that the Government obligation to give full, frank and honest advice about could rely on the Civil Contingencies Act. This is the the consequences for the British people. How do they second “loophole” that I want to mention. That would intend to do that? We started with the leak of Operation mean using the powers in the Civil Contingencies Act Yellowhammer documents. Will the Government update to override or indeed revoke or set aside the Benn Act. and release the results of that inquiry? If so, when? There are a number of reasons why that would be We need to know. wrong. First and foremost is because the great powers I turn now to the subject of the Minister’s opening that do appear in the Civil Contingencies Act only remarks. Of course, the third important issue is what arise if there is an “emergency”. That arises only when new terms of the deal there are. If the Government the Government are satisfied that, can persuade the EU and the other place to accept “an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur”. those terms, that is one thing. They, and we, will need According to the Act, “emergency” means, to examine them closely. During the course of today, others will no doubt comment on them. I want to “an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human make some brief initial comments. First, it is telling … welfare in the United Kingdom”, that this statement is released just as the Conservative or in a part or region of it. It would still be necessary Party conference comes to an end. The result of that to show that urgent provision has to be made to was that the Prime Minister did not have to debate its address that emergency. Noble Lords will agree that contents and merits with the conference itself, which that situation does not apply at the moment. However, might have been a difficult job. It also means that we the suggestion that this Act might be employed is and the other place have less time to deal with it. worrying, because if civil unrest or riot, or the prospect Secondly, as noble Lords will recall, there was a of them, were invoked, the Government might then commitment that there would be no more infrastructure claim that the statutory conditions to revoke the Benn or physical checks on the Irish border. I am not at all Act were in fact in existence. It is a worry that some clear from reading and listening to the Minister whether Ministers appear to be talking up the risk of unrest, that is in fact what these proposals will do. That needs perhaps precisely with that intention in mind. That to be probed as we go through this. Thirdly, it also would be cynical and unlawful. seems that this provides for separate regimes for Northern 1685 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1686

Ireland and the rest of Great Britain. Again, the today would, if carried through, mean there will be no Minister will no doubt confirm that remark, or otherwise. need to amend Section 10 of the European Union That is a very important consideration which has been (Withdrawal) Act 2018 at all? It says that: a terrible problem for many people in the past. “Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises Those issues will need to be examined. I will say no regulations which … create or facilitate border arrangements more about them at this stage, but I have no doubt between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit other noble Lords will during this debate, including day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are my noble friend Lady Hayter. I am glad to hear—and not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom for this I thank the Minister—the announcement that and the EU”. a Statement will be made tomorrow. The usual channels It is important to get that reassurance. will have to consider how long to allow for that Statement, as I imagine many noble Lords will want The immediate priority of my party—indeed, of the opportunity to speak to it. many—is to ensure that the United Kingdom does not crash out of the European Union on 31 October, without a deal. That is why we wholeheartedly supported 4 pm the legislation promoted in your Lordships’ House by Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD): My Lords, these the noble Lord, Lord Rooker,which is now the European Benches also welcome the debate. A benefit of the Union (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019. That has sometimes purported Prorogation being nullified is that we are been traduced as an attempt by remainers to frustrate able to hold the Government to account on this crucial Brexit in its entirety. It is worth pointing out that that issue, at such a crucial time—just 29 days before the Bill was supported by both remainers and leavers. It is date, set back in April, for the further extension of fair to say that, in the House of Commons, there were Article 50. Donald Tusk was reputed to have advised ex-Cabinet Ministers who had voted for the leave the United Kingdom not to waste this time. agreement more often than the Prime Minister himself had. Therefore, it is wrong to characterise it as being a Today we have learned, and have heard from the device or ploy by remainers to frustrate Brexit. It was noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that the Prime Minister intended to frustrate Brexit without any deal, which is has made what was being trailed this morning as his an important distinction. final offer. It could equally be described as his first offer. We will have to study this in detail. If one looks, When questioned last Thursday, the Minister—as for example, at the suggestion that it provides for the picked up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith potential creation of an all-Ireland regulatory zone —said that the Government would obey the law, but on the island of Ireland, it might appear that the refused to say what the Government understood the Government’s attempt to get around the border problem law to be. I very much hope that the very detailed is to create two borders. Maybe that is why the Prime analysis the noble and learned Lord has given will be Minister has the idea of a bridge between Scotland fully responded to by the Minister. and Northern Ireland—so it can have a regulatory We oppose no deal because, while we believe that checkpoint half way across. leaving the EU at all on any terms would be damaging The Irish border has been a real difficulty ever since to jobs, the National Health Service, small businesses, Theresa May set out her mutually contradictory red farmers, the aspirations of our young people, to others lines: out of the single market, out of the customs and to our prosperity, we believe that crashing out union and no hard border on the island of Ireland. without a deal, as foreshadowed in Operation The last of these commands widespread support, but Yellowhammer, would inflict serious damage indeed, the first two amounted to acquiescence to the right not least on the most vulnerable members of our wing of the Conservative Party. It treated the outcome society. Serious job losses, the anxieties of cancer of the referendum as if it had been 95:5 and not 52:48. patients, bleak prospects for rural farmers: these were It was in the interest of holding her party together, never displayed on the side of buses during the referendum rather than the national interest. In December 2016, campaign. Indeed, in April 2016, just two months the European Union Select Committee of your Lordships’ before the referendum, the now Foreign Secretary, House, in its sixth report, said: Dominic Raab, said on the BBC’s “Daily Politics” that, “Retaining customs-free trade between the UK and Ireland will be essential if the current soft border arrangements are to be “the idea that Britain would be apocalyptically off the cliff edge if maintained … Nor, while electronic solutions and cross-border we left the EU is silly”. cooperation are helpful as far as they go, is the technology In March this year, in a newspaper article, Mr Michael currently available to maintain an accurate record of cross-border movement of goods without physical checks at the border”. Gove said that, That conclusion of the Select Committee has stood “we didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message the test of time. of the campaign I helped lead”. Clearly what we have been seeing today will require There is no mandate whatever for leaving without a analysis, but the real concern with any infrastructure, deal. whether at the border or 10 miles removed from it, is In his remarks, the Minister said that the Government that we will see a reversal of the gains of the Good have ramped up no-deal preparations.Wehad a Statement Friday agreement. It will significantly disrupt all-Ireland last week on Operation Yellowhammer on the dire trade, as well as impact local communities. When the consequences of a no-deal Brexit, and the publication Minister replies, can he confirm that the proposals of a document about which the First Minister of that have been submitted to the European Commission Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, said she could see no 1687 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1688

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] I have two concluding points. We are told constantly difference from the one she had previously seen, except that the theme of the Conservative Party conference that what had previously been described as a “base is, “Get Brexit done by 31 October”. That conjures up scenario”had now been changed to “worst case scenario”. an idea that simply leaving with or without a deal is all But can the Minister tell us about some of the other that is required. Should that happen, people will very operations we believe the Government have prepared quickly realise that that is only the end of the beginning; briefings and detailed analysis of, such as Operation that a new, and likely very long, phase of negotiations Snow Bunting—the policing response in the event of a on our future relations with the European Union no-deal Brexit? would ensue, even longer and more difficult were we to crash out without a deal. There is no sign that the On the subject of policing, will the Minister comment Government have given any thought to the way forward, on evidence given yesterday to the Justice Committee so what kind of public disillusionment will be created of the Scottish Parliament, in which the deputy chief by the kind of simplistic sloganizing that does not constable of Police Scotland was reported in the Times bear out reality? as having said that Police Scotland has been denied access to sensitive plans to handle civil disruption On these Benches, we believe that the best way forward after Brexit? He said: is a people’s vote. Can any of us for one moment think that if the June 2016 result had been 52 to 48 the other “We have, frankly, at times struggled to access some of the way around Brexiteers would have said, “Fair cop, more sensitive elements, or layers, of those planning assumptions … Some of those planning assumptions have tended, at times, to guv, we’re packing up our tents and we are going to be quite London or south of England-centric, and we’ve been quit the field”? Of course they would not. Painful constantly reinforcing the different legal and constitutional though it would have been to have heard Bill Cash arrangements in Scotland”. continue to go on, I would have respected the long-term and long-held beliefs of people who have opposed our It would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us membership of the European Union for a long, long what attempts have been made to address these concerns time. Why, therefore, should not my colleagues and I expressed only yesterday by the deputy chief constable be afforded a similar respect for the beliefs that we of Police Scotland. have held for a long time? Why should we abandon We are told that there is an Operation Kingfisher—a those views that we have held for decades? If there is bailout fund to prop up businesses in the event of a not a people’s vote, we have said that we will campaign no-deal Brexit; and an Operation Black Swan, a worst- in a general election for a majority and a democratic case disaster scenario for surprise events with huge mandate to revoke Article 50. repercussions. Can the Minister give us more details of Brexiteers do not have a monopoly on patriotism. I these contingency planning analyses,which we understand believe passionately that the prosperity, security and are going on within the Government but they are not the well-being of our country and the communities being totally open about? Are they planning to have that we serve—and not least future generations—are any other birds? One could speculate whether Operation best achieved by our continuing membership of the Emu might be for a plan that will not fly. European Union. No one is going to deny our right to At the time of the attempted Prorogation, a number campaign for it. of pieces of legislation had not been completed. The Queen’s Speech that started this Session back in June 4.11 pm 2017 foresaw, Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB): My Lords, since we “legislation to ensure that the United Kingdom makes a success last debated Brexit, much has changed and yet, in of Brexit, establishing new national policies on immigration, many ways, nothing has changed. In some respects, we international sanctions, nuclear safeguards, agriculture and have gone backwards. Weare looking for a new departure fisheries”.—[Official Report, 21/6/17; col. 5.] arrangement having renounced Theresa May’sagreement, How many of these Bills have actually been passed? which many of us, however reluctantly, were finally What about the ones which have not? Are the Government willing to support—including the present Prime Minister. saying, having thought that they were necessary to Yet in the gloom, I believe there are some hopeful make a success of Brexit, that Brexit will not be a signs, to which I will return. success because they have not passed them? Let me first say in parenthesis that I saw nothing If one listened to the exchanges in the Supreme surprising or constitutionally revolutionary in last week’s Court on the final day of the recent case, the Advocate- ruling of the Supreme Court. Since the noble Lord, General for Scotland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pannick, was sitting beside me, let me say that in Lord Keen of Elie, appeared to say that the Government view of the large television audiences for the proceedings had provided the court with an explanatory note on of the court and following the ending of the televising Brexit-related primary legislation not required for an of the Ashes contest, my noble friend has a claim to exit date of 31 October. It would be very helpful, if have become the Ben Stokes of the legal profession. that note exists—I understood that it was given to the My career was spent in an era when judicial review court—if it could be placed in the Library so that we became established as a means of challenging could see the Government’s analysis of legislation that unreasonable exercises of power by the Executive. has not been passed. In the event of an agreement Although Prorogation took place geographically in being reached, can the Minister also tell us how quickly Parliament, it was an act of the Executive: Parliament he thinks the implementation legislation could go did not have a chance to vote on it. For me, the crucial through your Lordships’ House? sentence in the judgement was: 1689 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1690

“It is impossible for us to conclude … that there was any at least be preferable to the present paralysis and, in reason—let alone a good reason—to advise Her Majesty to my view, greatly preferable to leaving on 31 October prorogue Parliament for five weeks”. without a deal. A five-week Prorogation of Parliament at a crucial time when, as we will see next week, only a few days 4.17 pm are needed to prepare for a Queen’s Speech, was an unreasonable exercise of the prerogative by the Executive. Lord Howell of Guildford (Con): My Lords, as the That is what the ruling was about; it was not about Government are in mid-negotiation with the European Brexit. Commission, with Belfast and Dublin, and no doubt with other political forces in the other place, it is a little difficult to debate this issue this afternoon with Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con): I have huge respect full confidence—particularly as we have had about for the noble Lord and I value his advice. He is 10 minutes to absorb the outlines which my noble arguing that the process of Prorogation did not constitute friend the Minister so kindly gave of the Government’s proceedings in Parliament. Does he think the same is new proposals. The rest remains not only in negotiation true of giving Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament? but deliberately veiled. I understand that the Government want Brussels to try to keep these matters secret. That is a pretty forlorn hope but anyway, the veil has not yet Lord Butler of Brockwell: That is a legal issue on been fully lifted so it is a little hard to see the full which I do not want to reply immediately. I think that picture. Nevertheless, I intend to concentrate on that is a proceeding in Parliament, but this was an act of and, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, to try to be the Executive,which happened to take place in Parliament. positive about these matters rather than getting too The result of the Supreme Court’s judgment is that bogged down in the sort of endless “What if?” speeches this House is sitting today and we have an opportunity we have had, such as that of the noble and learned to make our contribution to the debate, so I welcome Lord, Lord Goldsmith. this occasion. I hope that the Government get a deal It is assumed that there will be no withdrawal with the EU; and there are some hopeful signs, although agreement and that we will arrive at 31 October with perhaps not as many as the Prime Minister claims. The the Government saying that they are determined to DUP now seems prepared to support a deal on the leave and the Benn Bill saying that they should not. broad lines the Prime Minister is outlining. The Irish Let me put that aside to look at the positive prospects Government, although by no means convinced by the and what we can deduce from what has been said in details so far reported about the Prime Minister’s the various capitals about the attempt to find an approach, appear to have realised that no deal would alternative to the backstop. I note that in this House be a severe economic blow to them. The European only a fortnight ago, some of us who dared to raise the Union wants a deal and is prepared to accept a greater idea that there was a question to be asked about an role for the Northern Ireland Executive regarding the alternative to the backstop were told by all the experts— arrangements affecting Northern Ireland. As the noble distinguished former Northern Ireland Secretaries and Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out to us in our previous others whose judgment I greatly respect—that it was debate, constructive suggestions about alternative out of the question. We were told, “It can’t happen. arrangements for border controls have been made by It’snever happened anywhere else. There is no conceivable the commission established by Prosperity UK. alternative to the backstop and nothing else will be Yet the prospects of reaching an agreement on all considered”. the necessary details by 31 October,let alone 17 October, Since then, even Jean-Claude Juncker has said that are so remote as to be impracticable. So what sort of there is an alternative. Since then, the Times and the agreement do the Government envisage by that date? I Financial Times have pronounced with great authority understand that the Minister will not be able to tell us that there can be no alternative, it is quite wrong to any more tonight, beyond what is in the Prime Minister’s assume that there can be any possible difference from so-called final offer to the EU and the documents that the past, the backstop is here to stay, and it is all out of have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. But the question. Now it turns out to be in the question. I realistically, we must accept that it seems impossible do not say that we have an answer. Maybe the critics that an agreement will be reached on 17 October, and the sceptics on both sides—both the remainers except perhaps on ways of temporarily mitigating the who do not want there to be a deal of this kind and effects of no deal. want to stay in, and the super no-dealers who do not In that case, a request for a postponement under want there to be any kind of withdrawal agreement the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act seems because they want to leave without a deal—will go on inevitable. People understandably ask, “What would questioning and hoping for a negative answer, but I be the purpose of an extension?”. The Minister described am not so sure at all. I noticed in the speech by the it as “pointless”; I was surprised by that adjective noble Lord, Lord Butler, and in many other comments, because one benefit would be the general election a hint of possibilities and that the simple, crude backstop, which the Government have been seeking. It would, which was so indigestible, does have alternatives. They presumably, take place in late November or early are complex and technical and involve very special December and might produce a Government able to arrangements of a kind that have never happened hammer out a policy which would command a majority elsewhere in the world—but Ireland is special. in Parliament, and with whom the EU would have to I just make a few comments on the situation in negotiate seriously. If that were the outcome, it would Ireland. It is worth noting that there has always been a be a price worth paying for a further extension. It would border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, 1691 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1692

[LORD HOWELL OF GUILDFORD] First World War that saved us from that, and no one not only before we all joined the European Union, but would want to see that as the deus ex machina which for the last 40 years. It is a border that is heavily saves us this time. What is the crisis? It is that, from policed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. There what, on a quick reading, we know of the Government’s have always been massive, complex cross-border tax alternatives on the Irish question today—and of course and regulatory issues that have had to be dealt with by we have not had a lot of time to look at it—I cannot endless experts and consultants. If you ask any senior believe that they are a serious proposition. To me, they businessman in Northern Ireland, they will tell you all come across, I am afraid, as a ruse invented in London about the arrangements that arise as a result of there to put the blame on the European Union for a no-deal being a border. The most obvious one is VAT: 23% in breakdown. the Republic—with a whole range of derogations, They are not serious for four principal reasons. First, right down to 4.8%, I think, on greyhounds—and they breach the solemn promise that was made in the 20% this side of the border, in the United Kingdom, December 2017 joint agreement between the EU and although we have been in the EU so far. That is just Britain—a promise, by the way, to which Boris Johnson one example of the whole list of differences on payroll, was fully a party, as a member of the Cabinet who did labour provisions, the currency, which is of course not resign at the time—that ruled out the reintroduction quite different, transfer pricing and a whole range of of a customs border in Ireland and promised a solution other issues. Yet everyone has managed quite well with based on full regulatory alignment. It is all very well an invisible border. for Mr Johnson now to claim that these reintroduced Why, when we move into this new situation, it customs checks would not be “at or near” the border, should become so impossibly difficult, I do not whatever that might mean. The central point is that understand. I do not understand the voices that are the new Government have changed the whole basis of still coming from Dublin saying, “No, we don’t want their approach to the Irish issue from that of their any of that at all”. I have to ask—I think any reasonable predecessor under Mrs May—from one of how to person has to ask—what exactly does Dublin want? achieve the full alignment that makes talk of borders We want co-operation and constructiveness with the unnecessary, to one of how to minimise the disruption Republic of Ireland. We have a very close relationship, of customs controls.The fact is,for all that the noble Lord, bad in the distant past but better in the last 50 years, Lord Howell, says, there is nowhere in the world where and we want it to be better still. Do those in Dublin customs controls do not require physical infrastructure. want to get rid of the common travel area that has been with us since 1922? If they do, it will be very Secondly, the British Government are expecting the painful for them. Do they want to build a physical Republic and the whole of the EU to sign off on this border to mark the edge of the EU? Again, I cannot principle without detailed agreement on the practicalities. believe they really do, but that is the consequence of That suggests that the Government do not actually being negative about the proposals and allowing things have an answer on the practicalities. to drift to no deal. Thirdly, the UK is apparently proposing that this Under the new proposals, as I understand it, we arrangement will be temporary: it will have a life of have two, or maybe even four years—I am not quite only four years and then it will be up to the Northern sure; I am going by the Daily Telegraph, which may Irish. However, in practice, the way they have put it, as not be all that reliable—to sort out how these new I read it, is that it would give the DUP a veto: it would arrangements could really work in practice. Over those not be representative of Irish opinion in Northern several years, a lot will change. A lot will change here, Ireland as a whole. because we will see far greater devolution to all the Fourthly, is this a take it or leave it offer or not? I regions, including Northern Ireland, Scotland—if it hope that the Minister will enlighten us, because if it is does not go independent—and Wales. We will see the take it or leave it, it does not fill me with optimism. status of all devolved Governments vastly increase in Therefore, let us not be under illusions: under this this country in the digital age. We might as well Government we are heading for no deal. And let us recognise that that is what is coming and that a new not kid ourselves that the deal they would actually pattern will develop if we can show patience. If this seek if they avoided no deal would be that much Parliament can show patience and can agree to a better, because their firm intention is that Britain will withdrawal agreement, then we can go forward leave both the single market and a customs union at constructively. If this Parliament remains paralysed the end of the withdrawal agreement’s transition period. and cannot ever reach agreement, then I fear the We may avoid chaos in December, but 14 months later obvious outcome—which many of us predicted all we would have the certainty of no frictionless border along—is a general election and a new pattern, which with the EU, a self-imposed calamity for all our may be slightly better than that which, so far, the manufacturing industries with integrated supply chains, House of Commons has been able to deliver. and potentially significant disruption to our present competitive position in services. 4.24 pm The Government may say that that is nonsense, and Lord Liddle (Lab): My Lords, I fear that we are on that by then they will have negotiated the most wonderful the verge of a very great constitutional crisis—probably Canada-style free trade agreement with the EU. Let us the greatest since the Conservative Party leadership be clear: they will not have done. That is not just flirted with defying the law in the last days of the because of the shortage of time. There has been, Asquith Government before the First World War again under Mr Johnson, a very significant change of on the question of Irish home rule. It was only the government policy. Boris Johnson wants Britain to be 1693 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1694 a competitor with the EU, not to converge with the As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, EU’s standards. He wants to jump EU regulations; he made clear in his opening remarks, one of the points wants to remove EU protections; he wants to slash taxes. that the Supreme Court made last week is that it is Can he be serious on this point? How can our EU also up to this House to scrutinise the Government—yet neighbours offer us preferential access to their markets we seem to have a Government who wish to ignore if our policy is to create a deregulated tax haven across Parliament. We heard earlier in Questions about the the channel, 20 miles away? It is not going to happen, role of special advisers and of one Mr Dominic and we will suffer a great deal as a result. So I fear that Cummings, a special adviser to the Prime Minister we are in a very difficult situation on Brexit. who is in contempt of Parliament. What does it say I will end with a word about democracy. A general about the Government’s approach to Parliament that election, which the Conservatives want, could result in such an important special adviser is in contempt of a majority in Parliament for no deal—but that could Parliament? be won, under our first-past-the-post system, on 33%, The attempt to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, 34% or 35% of the vote. For me, and for many others if not a contempt of your Lordships’ House and the in this Chamber,that would have absolutely no legitimacy. other place, suggests that Nikki da Costa, the director The only democratically legitimate solution to the of legislative affairs, perhaps does not fully understand problem that we have is a referendum. If we want to the role of Parliament. In the advice given to the avoid a constitutional crisis, that is where we should Prime Minister, there was a suggestion that while now go. 34 days might be lost through Prorogation, that was actually only five sitting days—as if sitting in plenary 4.31 pm session is the only thing that Parliament does. Had that Prorogation taken effect, we would not be able to Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD): My Lords, I too ask questions, the Government could not be held to planned to talk about democracy, but I thought I account and committees could not sit—and that is would start by referring to a brief encounter I had what the Government seem to want. with a policeman at the bottom of my staircase this morning. I arrived and said, “Good morning”, and he said, “Brexit today, ma’am”. I paused, and momentarily Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con): The noble Baroness thought, “I wish”. Then I remembered that, as a is making an interesting speech about democracy, but Liberal Democrat, I clearly do not wish that it were would she explain one mystery that I really do not Brexit today. But I suspect that I am not alone in understand? How is it that the Liberal party was the wishing that we were not four years from the day when first party to propose an in/out referendum on this this House started to debate the European Union issue? Indeed, the present leader of the Liberal party Referendum Act 2015, because for the past four years, repeatedly criticised David Cameron for not proposing we seem to have been debating the same issues day an in/out referendum before he did. How can the after day in a stultifying Chamber, in a stultifying Liberal party, having been in that position, now say it parliamentary system, which seems not to be getting is going to ignore the results of the referendum? us very far. The Minister suggested this afternoon that we are Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, I am delighted finally making progress—indeed, this debate is to note to take that intervention, and particularly delighted our withdrawal from the European Union—but it is that I am taking it not from the Liberal Democrat not clear how close we are to withdrawal. There are Front Bench. Four years ago, when I was speaking questions about the nature of our withdrawal, what it from the Front Bench on the referendum Bill, I was will mean and where the United Kingdom ends up. intervened upon by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, Much of the rhetoric during the referendum was who, when I said I was rather sad to be having to about voting leave, taking back control. Taking back speak in a debate about a referendum, reminded me control could mean whatever the voter wanted it to that the Liberal Democrat position had indeed been to mean about borders. The Home Secretary yesterday support an in/out referendum. That has been our seemed to get very excited about the opportunity to party policy. Like that of other parties, the Liberal take back control of borders. Democrat position is one— Another issue appeared to be taking back control I hear from a sedentary position something about to Parliament—bringing decisions back to the United opportunism. I am a Liberal Democrat; I believe in Kingdom—because the leave campaign told us that democracy. I did not vote against triggering Article 50. the European Union is not democratic. Yet the European I personally accept the result of the referendum but, as Union has free and fair periodic elections once every we have already heard, Michael Gove, who is currently five years to elect the European Parliament. This year, responsible for the Government’s no-deal preparations, that included the United Kingdom. Wewere not supposed also said we were not preparing for a no-deal Brexit. to have European elections this year, but so glacial is That was not what people voted for. the process of our departure that we did. The United We are in a position in which Parliament is incapable Kingdom, like the other 27 members, has the opportunity of delivering Brexit unless this Prime Minister manages to elect Members of the European Parliament. That to pull a rabbit out of a hat with his letter to Jean-Claude is a type of democracy. The House of Commons is Juncker. also democratically elected. The House of Commons I can hear my Whip saying “time”. However, I was and your Lordships’ House are supposed to take intervened on, and nobody else has so far taken any part in the legislative process, but also in scrutinising notice of the Clock, so at this stage I am not going the Government. to either. 1695 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1696

[BARONESS SMITH OF NEWNHAM] talking to partners since I became chairman. The We are in a position in which the Government have Government have often said that we would take a full not been able to deliver Brexit and Parliament has not part in the affairs of the EU until we left. On 16 September been able to come to a solution. The way around that the General Affairs Council of the EU met—the EU is another referendum. The Liberal Democrat position format that would have expected to welcome our is that if a general election came first and we had a Foreign Secretary. Sixteen Foreign Secretaries from majority, we would want to revoke—so be it—but we other nations were present; the other countries sent are not at that stage. either their Deputy Foreign Secretaries or their permanent I would have had another minute had I not been representatives. Our chair was empty. As one senior intervened on. I ask the Minister: what are the European put it to me, “I don’t see how one develops a Government proposing to do? Unlike other noble deep and meaningful relationship by being absent”. Lords, I will assume that the Prime Minister gets his Their bafflement is all the greater as there is a far deal on 17 October and we get to the point of the from zero chance, given the provisions of the Benn House of Commons accepting the deal. That might Act, that we will continue our membership beyond be 19 or 21 October. Do we not need a withdrawal 31 October. Even if we do leave on that date, the next implementation Bill to deal with that agreement? How step will undoubtedly be to seek to open fresh negotiations. do the Government propose to get that through What sort of preparation is it for those negotiations Parliament? There was filibustering from the Government for the UK to sign out of discussions on the entire Benches when we tried to get through a very brief range of EU legislation? Our UKRep team—recently piece of legislation before the non-Prorogation. This beefed up—is hugely experienced and able to deputise would be a much more serious piece of legislation. Do for Ministers where necessary. the Government really envisage getting it through The second problem is that there is insufficient both Houses in 10 days—calendar days, not working clarity about which meetings we will attend. The EU days? If so, how does the Minister propose to do that? Committee in a letter of 4 September asked for more detail on this. The Minister answered very quickly on Lord Bethell (Con): My Lords, there is an advisory 9 September—I thank him for that speed—but I regret Back-Bench speaking time of six minutes. We have that his answer had the effect of reducing clarity. The been consistently over that time. For the fairness of test is now only, the House, I wonder if we can try to stick to that. “what the Government considers to be in the national interest”. It was also noted that: 4.40 pm “Attendance will be decided on a case by case basis”. That lack of clarity is bad for our EU 27 friends and The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl): My Lords, it is a partners and for Parliament in our scrutiny work. Our great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who spoke correspondence on this matter continues. with her customary zeal and energy. Before I make my brief remarks,I want to note how busy the EU Committee The third problem is one of accountability. The structure is. The family of committees is meeting and scrutiny reserve resolution of March 2010 sets out the the great machinery that is scrutiny has restarted and Government’s commitments on how scrutiny operates continues apace. The 43rd of our Brexit reports is in and how Ministers will vote on matters that are still its final stages of preparation. The 16th of our Treaty the subject of scrutiny. Some 200 files are currently reports will be out next week. I pay tribute to our under scrutiny by the EU Committee, which is very 26 staff. clear that it expects the Government to continue to attend any and all meetings that relate to files held I wanted to use my time on one issue of great under scrutiny. We are not imagining that scrutiny will concern to me and the EU Committee. Indeed, at our continue unchanged after Brexit day. It is clear that on meeting yesterday the majority of our time was taken that day the scrutiny reserve will fall and that our up with it. I speak of the new policy on UK participation internal processes will change fundamentally. However, in EU meetings—the empty chair policy. On 20 August we had a clear understanding with the previous the UK wrote to the EU Council and said that going Government that until exit day the existing scrutiny forward, UK Ministers and officials would participate processes would continue and the Government would in EU meetings only where, give the committee their full support. Can the Minister “the UK has significant national interests involved”. confirm that that is still the case? Some guidance was given in the letter about what that In his letter of 9 September, the Minister made might mean, and later in the letter the position of our reference to delegating the UK’s vote to the presidency vote was discussed. I quote from the letter again: country, Finland. Can he further confirm that the “Where necessary therefore, the UK will make appropriate Government share my understanding that any vote arrangements regarding its vote”. cast by the presidency on behalf of UK will engage This was subsequently clarified as meaning delegating the terms of the scrutiny reserve? the UK’s vote to Finland, which currently holds the I am pressing the Minister on those points in part rotating EU presidency. The committee understands because of an alarming letter that we recently received that UK officials and Ministers now attend about from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial one-third of EU meetings. Strategy concerning our scrutiny of a draft regulation On that stark set of facts, I have three points to for the single market programme. It is quite an important make. The first is one of perception: our partners take regulation. The letter asks us to clear this matter from this badly. I have spent a number of days in Europe scrutiny on the basis that: 1697 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1698

“HMG officials will no longer attend the working party out from one another. Otherwise, we have a terrific responsible for drafting the Regulation for the Single Market burden of trying to agree the future relationships at Programme. Consequently, the Government will not be able to this stage, when Article 50 clearly contemplates that provide a meaningful update to the Committees”. that is a distinct matter and does not require agreement It continues: for now. I am hoping to be well under the six minutes, “As UK ministers and officials will have no further role in because that is what I have to say. shaping the Regulation ... I am writing to formally request that”, it, “be cleared from scrutiny”. 4.50 pm The empty-chair policy is being used, it would appear, to try to circumvent the scrutiny of both Houses on Lord Whitty (Lab): My Lords, I congratulate the matters of direct and, in all probability, continuing noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, whom it is interest to the UK and UK businesses. always a pleasure to follow, and I shall take up some of his points. It is also a pleasure to come shortly after In our democracy a major and core ingredient is the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I congratulate him on respect for institutions. Indeed, we now know that this the record for not only becoming the chair of the EU respect is a matter not just of convention but of Select Committee but making absolutely crucial points law—Lady Hale has told us. The empty-chair policy on the future and current roles of that committee in raises questions over the Government’s respect for this the light of the empty chair decision. House, for the scrutiny reserve and for our ongoing relationship with the EU institutions. I suspect that we In some ways, I find the usual style of the House of will hear more about this today, and I look forward to Lords and the rather strange title of this debate rather the Minister’s reply. bewildering. I personally wanted to do more than “note”the withdrawal; I would quite like an amendment that says “regret”. I shall probably weep on Halloween, 4.46 pm because I have always regretted the Brexit decision. Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con): My Lords, it is Immediately after the decision, like many other remainers, always a privilege to follow a fellow Scot, although I I was prepared to take a constructive approach to that will deal with a rather different matter. situation and look at how we could negotiate our way We are dealing with the proposals in Article 50 for into a new relationship with the EU. By that we then withdrawal from the European Union. It is important meant an early fulfilment of the withdrawal treaty, a to note that, once a country such as ours has given decent transition period when the arrangements could such notice, it is the duty of the Union—I want to be sorted out—in the meantime, we would be on a read the exact words—to, level playing field—and we could then start on the “negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out very serious prospect of negotiating a proper future the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework free trade agreement with our largest trading partner. for its future relationship with the Union”. What has happened since then has destroyed that In other words, the withdrawal agreement has nothing vision. We have had the most appalling negotiations, whatever to do with the future relationship, except on which I have previously commented. Any first-time that it be in the light of that future relationship. That is shop steward or negotiator in the commercial world the agreement we have to reach, and it is that agreement would throw their hands up in horror at the way this and that agreement only that defines the date on British Government have negotiated—I mainly blame which we leave the European Union. There is no the British Government, although I have some criticism requirement to agree any arrangement about future of the EU as well. relationships. That is a framework, not an agreement—a This is the first time that we have been able—at framework which is set up at that time. Therefore, it is 10 minutes’ notice—to look at what the Government extremely important to realise that, in order to satisfy describe as the “first and final offer” on a change the rules of the European Union set out in Article 50, in the backstop. The Northern Ireland situation, we are not required to agree the future relationships. specifically the backstop, has largely prevented us Those are for the future. The immediate matter is to from concluding the withdrawal agreement. However, agree the terms on which we withdraw. One term it is not at all clear whether the manner in which the which has been negotiated so far, and which I hope Prime Minister is presenting that agreement is likely to will continue, is that there will be an implementation win him many friends in Brussels. While we have had period in which the rules remain substantially the some positive and diplomatic responses from Berlin same. and Brussels, it is by no means delivered. We will have Therefore, the question of the withdrawal agreement a chance to debate that document tomorrow. is quite simple. It deals with matters and obligations It is worth noting the point that I have made from that arise at the withdrawal date, and that date—the the beginning, and that is that including Northern one on which the withdrawal agreement is agreed—is Ireland and the border issue in the withdrawal treaty the date for leaving the European Union. Also, Article 50 was probably the first and most profound mistake that does not mention anything about crashing out or any David Davis made in his period as negotiating Secretary. expression of that sort if it is not possible to reach an In the end, Northern Ireland and the Republic of agreement two years after the original notice; it just Ireland’s relationship and trade arrangements can only says that that is what will happen. be resolved in the context of a longer-term trade deal. In my submission, it is absolutely essential that We are still dealing with a very short-term situation. It future relationships on the one hand and the obligations would appear on first reading of the new document of withdrawal on the other are distinct and separated that we are doing so in a way that has been objected to 1699 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1700

[LORD WHITTY] I was stimulated to deal with this topic by an article by a substantial proportion of unionist opinion in the written by the noble Lord, Lord Hague, which appeared north. In other words, we are keeping Northern Ireland in a national newspaper this week. He argued that the in the EU single market to a large extent and differentiating rule of law was of great importance for the Tory party. the treatment of Northern Ireland from the rest of the That ought to be true, but I am not sure it is what we United Kingdom. I think that was always inevitable, have been seeing in practice—and it is perhaps most and the resolution of it rests in a long-term trade important for the country. After the announcement of agreement. the judgment of the Supreme Court, Minister after The way the Prime Minister has presented this new Minister sought to undermine that judgment—some solution is designed both to offend the negotiators on covertly, others by way of open attack. To attack the other side of the channel and give cause for judges in that way is a contempt of court; in Scotland concern to many within Northern Ireland itself. The it used until 1971 to be called “murmuring” a judge. “two borders for four years” proposition is not what To attack them in that way is to defame them; you are anybody in Northern Ireland was looking for. Even if behaving in a defamatory way. there were a narrow deal and we could move on to the All that culminated in the suggestion that there next stage, there are signs in the Government’s attitude should be public hearings of confirmation before that suggest we will be in very serious difficulty. What individuals could ascend to the Supreme Court. I do has been reported, although it does not appear to be in not shrink from saying that that was a full-frontal these letters, is that, in addition to the points on attack on judicial independence. How would we apply Northern Ireland and the backstop, the Government it? Would we draw on the recent experience of the have signalled—in relation to the political declaration, United States? Would that be our benchmark? Would not the withdrawal treaty—that they wish parts of the we say to people, after Senator McCarthy, “Are you declaration to be altered so that the commitment to a, now or have you ever been a member of the Conservative broadly speaking, level playing field is omitted. If that Party?”. Exactly what would the questioning amount is true, it means, as my noble friend Lord Liddle has to? indicated, that the Government are retreating to a position of not being committed on consumer rights, employment rights, environment protection or a host Lord Framlingham (Con): Does the noble Lord of other regulations which at present allow us to trade acknowledge that both the Master of the Rolls and the on a level playing field with our trading partners in Lord Chief Justice disagreed entirely with the view of Europe. In other words, this Government wish to have the Supreme Court? the ability to cut the rights that exist at the moment and to undercut the European Union in a way that Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: I acknowledge that, makes a free trade agreement much more difficult. but the fact of the matter is that, in our system, the This is, frankly, what most progressive opinion in Supreme Court is, as its name suggests, supreme. That Europe has always feared. It is just what will prevent decision having been taken, it is in my view wholly us from reaching a real long-term trade agreement unacceptable to have the kind of treatment that was with the EU, and this whole fiasco will drag on and made covertly and, in some cases, openly in relation to on. We have a debate tomorrow in the name of the the judgment issue. The same would have been true if, noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on human for example, those of the same cast of mind as Gina rights and democracy in future trade agreements. If Miller had attacked the decision made by the divisional our first step in that direction is to delete the human court. Attacking the independence of judges matters and employment rights that we have in our present not for what they have decided; what matters is their arrangements with Europe, I will weep on Halloween independence, and that must be emphasised and not only because of Brexit but for the standing of this encouraged at all stages. country in the world. Will the Minister name a legal jurisdiction which is more independent, impartial or incorruptible than the two legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom? 4.56 pm Politicisation will be the death knell of all three of Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD): My Lords, in these vital qualities. The fact is that, if the Supreme preparation for this debate, I both watched and listened Court had found in favour of the Government, it to the Prime Minister’s speech. I have come to the would have been praised for its Periclean wisdom. conclusion that it was not time well spent. Medals might even have been struck. I would like to concentrate on the consequences of Brexit, and in particular the impact on the rule of law. Lord Heseltine (Non-Afl): Of the 11 members of If the rule of law is to be effective, it must be observed the Supreme Court, nine were appointed under a both in substance and in process. Yet we continue to Conservative Prime Minister. Might that not have have the threat from the Prime Minister, supported by been used as an argument, if they had found for the others in his Government, that somehow a way will be Government, indicating corruption? found to avoid implementing the obligations contained in the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act. Not only does that Act carry the imprimatur of both Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: There are plenty of Houses of Parliament; it has Royal Assent. So, by his illustrations of how those who have had a political very conduct in even suggesting it, the Prime Minister affiliation, when elevated to the Bench, are able to put is yet again undermining the position of the monarch. that beyond them. 1701 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1702

The Prime Minister did not dare to publish his Whereas we should now have been at the stage of proposals before his party conference; he did not dare crossing the “t”s and dotting the “i”s in the negotiations, to tell his conference what the proposals were; and he we are now driven to populist rhetoric saying that we declined to tell Parliament until after their publication. are fed up and should just get the job done with scant I think that tells us quite enough about the Prime regard to the consequences or, on the other hand, Minister and his willingness to adopt attitudes of pragmatists counselling delay to get this right. History openness and accountability. will judge whether all this will have been a triumph for democracy, but “unedifying”encapsulates this endgame I hope that the Minister will respond to the last process. matter I will raise. Yesterday, it was said on behalf of the Government that the proposals did not involve Last week I participated in the Greater Eurasian infrastructure. How can customs checks be carried out parliamentary speakers conference, made up of speakers in the middle of a field? Who will carry out that check? and parliamentarians from 41 countries, which took What, if any, infrastructure will there be, even if it is place in Kazakhstan with the theme of trust, partnership only a camera at the end of a pole? Would not these and dialogue. Reaction to the Brexit process was one things be of an attractive nature to the dissidents, of bemusement, bewilderment and incredulity. To top albeit in a minority, whom we still find in Northern it off, possibly in the manner of things to come, when I Ireland? We are too close in many respects to the re-entered the European Union at Frankfurt the German consequences of the Troubles not to accept that to immigration officer asked what the purpose was of my introduce anything that seems in any way to prejudice entering the EU. I trust your Lordships will have the Belfast agreement could cause unrest and even, found favour with my response. beyond that, death and damage. It will take decades for the true long-term effects of departure from the EU to be felt. The saving grace is that it is the gift of the Government of the day, year on 5.03 pm year, to tailor policy to suit the circumstances of the Viscount Waverley (CB): My Lords, we cannot be day. We can take solace that it is the catering to those dismissive of 45 years’ shared partnership. There is circumstances that hopefully will come to the fore. I much to reflect on and respect. We need the EU 27 by am therefore reconciled to “Que sera, sera”and resigned our side. It has been a long haul and our country to reality. What we must all do now is rally around the deserves a long bout of optimism. We are apparently flag, react to the consequences and work to create in the Brexit home straight. It could all have been so opportunities in the best interests of the kingdom. I different. I believe that the EU journey should have will do my bit in any small way I am able. been managed differently by the UK from day one. However, I believe that we have an opportunity to The lack of appropriate messaging and misplaced move on from ways of old. We have a chance not only actions from the start have created the situation in to modernise but to instil a rhythm of inclusiveness which we find ourselves. and moderation in a newly-branded UK. The winning The UK has devoted too much of its thinking to ticket will be to bind our country together with ethnic, single-focused economic priorities, rather than balancing cultural and religious tolerance, and with this harmony them with the plethora of the important, unrelated will come all manner of success as we chart a future advantages of EU membership. There is an adage in globally, humble but effective in our approach. To that life: “You get out what you put in”. We have not been end, I think Brexit could, perversely, be a catalyst to an easy bedfellow, but I accept that respect, as well as preserve the sanctity of the United Kingdom. I hope genuine sadness, is felt in the high echelons of the not to be proven wide of the mark when I suggest that Commission and around the Union regarding our our Scottish cousins will reflect on the political and departure. economic complexities of separation. We are all in this together and we need each other. Everything that could have been said has been said in one form or another since the triggering of Article 50, The Minister commented on the question of citizens. yet a mountain of issues remain and are being taken to I would feel uncomfortable if I did not conclude on a the wire, both in negotiations with the Commission note close to home that could affect Portuguese living and internally in the UK. Only high politics will sort in the UK and British citizens in Portugal. Many EU this out, and that is not my bag. However, I ask the countries, and in my case Portugal, have made provision Minister: how can his Government be sure of their for UK citizens properly registered to remain in the numbers on large-scale investments announced at the event of a no-deal circumstance. The existence of such current Conservative Party conference yet feel able to legislation is certainly good news for Britons living in set out a legislative programme in the Queen’s Speech Portugal, and the Portuguese Government and parliament on 14 October when no one, including the Government, should be given credit and thanked for that law.However, knows the lie of the land on 31 October, Brexit day? a big “but” emerges. While Portuguese law 27-A/2019 isdescribedintheofficialbulletinasapprovingcontingency Frankly, I never thought Brexit would happen as I measures to be applied in the event of a no-deal exit, felt that our systems were too entwined, so in that article 19 addresses the issue of reciprocity. The law regard I have some sympathy with the no-nonsense refers to “equivalent treatment”. Is the Minister satisfied, approach. It will, however, be a huge relief when this and will he confirm today, that all the elements of the tortuous period is brought to an appropriate non-cata- EU citizens’ rights package have been fully incorporated clysmic closure. I understand that proposals regarding into a robust government policy with the necessary the political declaration are also being put forward today. legislation in place, including the settlement scheme? 1703 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1704

[VISCOUNT WAVERLEY] and other aerospace component safety certificates. Are all the immigration rules and other secondary We were told that there would be no visa arrangements instruments to this end legally in place? The Government between the EU and us—but, again, we have agreed of Portugal’s António Costa and Governments around reciprocally that there will be 90 days of visa-free the continent would welcome an unequivocal assurance travel with all members of the European Union. from the United Kingdom Government given concern So there will be a series of mini-deals. However, about the UK protecting the rights of EU citizens with those scares no longer available to frighten people, living here. the language moved on to abstract adjectives such as Will the Minister accept that anxiety prevails? To “catastrophic”, “disastrous” and so on. Most of the put this situation into context, extraordinary though it remaining specific fears, such as that there will be is, today there are 154 passenger flights leaving and shortages of fresh food and medicines, or that just-in-time departing between the UK and Portugal. There will be factories will have to close down, are based on the an almighty fuss if HMG do not grapple with this assumption that there will be disruption on the Dover- situation. Will the Minister state exactly what the Calais crossing because, for the first time, traders will situation is? What he has to say will be reflected on have to fill in customs declarations and pay tariffs. carefully by EU member states. If he feels unable to do that, will he confirm his intention to write in a timely These are just a few facts. First, customs declarations manner, addressing the issues that I have raised in will be required whether we have a free trade agreement detail, and to place a copy of his response in the or not. Secondly, they are not checked at the border Library, ideally before the Queen’s Speech? but by computer in Salford. They are made electronically. Likewise, tariffs are not paid and collected at the port. As the head of HMRC said, they are paid computer to 5.10 pm computer. Lord Lilley (Con): My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, with whom Physical checks of cargos are carried out only if the I share an interest in central Asia. Like him, I have algorithm in the computer at Salford shows that there always found, when in Kazakhstan and neighbouring is something suspicious about them, or if there is countries, that they have great sympathy with our other intelligence information. Fewer than 1% of decision to leave the European Union, having themselves consignments are subject to physical checks, and usually left the Soviet Union. these are carried out away from the port, at the destination or point of origin. Almost all checks relate to suspected I have always argued that the best outcome of our smuggling of tobacco, other excisable goods, drugs, negotiations would be a free trade agreement negotiated arms or illegal immigrants. HMRC does not expect before we leave; but the most likely outcome is that we any more information leading to suspicion of such leave without a withdrawal agreement—although smuggling and therefore does not expect to have to hopefully we will succeed in negotiating a free trade carry any more checks in future than it does at present. deal once we have left. Unfortunately, although the However, it has said that if for any reason there are most likely outcome is leaving without a withdrawal incipient delays on traffic going through Dover, it will agreement, the whole prospect has been demonised to prioritise flow over compliance. That does not mean the point where no serious thought or consideration is that it will neglect compliance, but checks will be given to it. If I may, I will deal with some of the carried out away from the port, at the company’s HQ misunderstandings that relate to it. or at the destination of the goods. First, there is no likelihood of us leaving with no deal, for the simple reason that we have already agreed The port of Dover has said that it is 100% ready for lots of mini-deals. We used to be warned that the Brexit. So there will not be any disruption in the flow planes would not fly. The EU then legislated that our coming through Dover. Fears all relate to what will planes would be able to fly over, land in and return happen if there are any delays at Calais. Calais has from EU airports, if we reciprocate. We reciprocated; said that it is better prepared than Dover. It now has deal done. Then we were told that our hauliers would more than a dozen lanes for handling lorries, where not have enough licences to operate. The EU created previously it had only two. It has a smart border and extra licences, as long as we reciprocated. Deal done. two inspection posts away from the border to ensure Then we were told, “That’s only going to apply up that there is no congestion when checking animals and until the end of the year”. Quite true—because it is animal products. So it is very unlikely that there will be going to be followed by a better arrangement, because any delays at Calais, either. the EU,in conjunction with us, has agreed that henceforth But if there were, what would happen? We know ECMT licences will be available for all 43 countries what would happen: we would have to activate Operation covered by that arrangement, not just for the 28 of the Stack. We have had to do that on more than 11 days a European Union. year on average for the last 20 years. In 2015, it was The EU also supported our renewed membership activated for 23 consecutive days; 7,000 lorries were of the Common Transit Convention, which means stacked up on the M20 and had to wait for 35 hours. I that our hauliers and traders will not have to pay duty simply ask Members of this House who threaten us or complete customs declarations until they reach with dire consequences if anything remotely like that their destination. Another deal done. We were told were to happen again: do they recall anyone dying that we would not be able to export Airbus wings, from a shortage of medicines? Do they recall any because their safety certificates would not be recognised. shortages of fresh food? There was certainly disruption The EU realised that the Airbus could not fly without of supplies of fresh food and of just-in-time production, wings, so it agreed to continue recognition of those but it did not lead to the closure of any factories. So let 1705 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1706 us not have exaggeration but stick to the facts. Then Those statements cannot both be true. If the island of we will be ready to face up to leaving with no withdrawal Ireland is going to be an all-Ireland regulatory zone, agreement and negotiating a free trade arrangement. which is the same as that of the rest of the EU—i.e. the customs union and the single market—it cannot 5.18 pm also be true that Northern Ireland will be fully part of Lord Adonis (Lab): My Lords, I will simply say of the UK customs territory. The Minister’s explanations the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that his of these matters are so clear to the House, so I look likening of the European Union to the Soviet Union forward to his explanation at the end of the debate. will be hugely resented by all those countries of central This doublespeak suffuses all the Government’s and eastern Europe that were colonies of the Soviet statements on Brexit. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, Union but are free and democratic members of the I have read the Prime Minister’s speech in Manchester, European Union. and we see it in that speech too. The Prime Minister From the outset, Ireland has been the Achilles heel tells us that “the alternative” to these proposals just of Brexit and I believe it will ultimately defeat it. That published “is no deal”. That is not correct. The alternative is not because the impact of Brexit on Ireland is to these proposals is not no deal. Parliament has said different from its impact on the whole of the United that, this House has agreed that, and her Majesty has Kingdom. The three key impacts or problems of Brexit— given Royal Assent to a Bill that says that the alternative that it will impede and imperil free trade, the free is not no deal. The alternative is that the Government movement of people and close relations between European will be required to apply for an extension of our neighbours—apply to the United Kingdom as a whole, membership of the European Union. That is the European in our relations with the European Union as a whole. Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act, so that was a However, they are magnified in the case of Northern straightforward untruth. What then happens will be Ireland because it has a greater proximity to the Republic for Parliament to decide. Parliament is the sovereign of Ireland than we have to the generality of the body in the United Kingdom. If it decides there will European Union and because they threaten a be a referendum or a general election, it will happen in straightforward breach of the Good Friday agreement. the context of the United Kingdom not leaving the That agreement does not regard it as acceptable that European Union at the end of October. there should be any move towards a harder border in The Prime Minister also said in his speech that, if Ireland, but that is of course the policy of Brexit in we stay in the EU at the end of October, we will pay, respect of our relations with the European Union as a “a billion pounds a month for the privilege, followed by years of whole. That is why Theresa May agreed the backstop. uncertainty for business and everyone else”. It is why the Minister has many times justified the backstop to this House, in the way that he descried it The key point that Members of your Lordships’ House earlier. will be well aware of—because of the hour after hour that we have spent debating the EU (Withdrawal) Act Since the Government changed and Boris Johnson and the agreement reached last year—is that, if we became Prime Minister, the Brexit policy has descended leave the European Union at the end of October, we into doublespeak. What now happens all the time is will pay £39 billion as part of the exit deal. As far as I that Ministers say something is sensible and workable am aware, but the Minister may correct me at the end when it is clearly nonsense and unworkable, and that of the debate, the Prime Minister is not proposing to something is true when it is manifestly false. We have unpick that. One certainty about us leaving with the seen that with Ireland in just the last 48 hours. We have withdrawal agreement and whatever changes are agreed been told that there will be different customs regimes between now and then is that we will have years of and regulatory rules over time—the question is what uncertainty for business and everyone else, because time—that will not require any customs checks on or there will be no long-term relationship between the near the border. European Union and us. We are faced with constant I have only had the chance to look briefly at the doublespeak, which misleads the British people and documents to which the Minister referred earlier, which debases the quality of public debate. were published today, although they will be forensically examined over the next few days and weeks. On my I am afraid that this doublespeak goes to the heart immediate reading, it looks as though these propositions of the character of the Prime Minister. He believes, he will disintegrate. In the Prime Minister’s letter to the tells us, in having customs checks and simultaneously President of the European Commission, he says one in having no customs checks. He says he will comply key aspect of the proposals is that they provide, with the law, but he has no intention of doing what it says. He uses vile, crass, inflammatory language, while “for the potential creation of an all-Ireland regulatory zone on the island of Ireland, covering all goods including agrifood”. claiming to be a model of restraint. He is unfit to hold While this regime is in place, office and the sooner he goes, the better. “goods regulations in Northern Ireland are the same as those in the rest of the EU”. 5.24 pm It is worth stressing those words: they are, “the same as those in the rest of the EU”. Lord McNally (LD): My Lords, the three years However, a following paragraph says: since the 2016 referendum have stress-tested every “Under these arrangements Northern Ireland will be fully aspect of our parliamentary democracy. At times we part of the UK customs territory, not the EU Customs Union … seem to have been living out Yeats’s words in his poem It has always been a fundamental point for this Government that “The Second Coming”: the UK will leave the EU customs union at the end of the “The best lack all conviction, while the worst transition period”. Are full of passionate intensity”. 1707 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1708

[LORD MCNALLY] will not live with those consequences should at least be I was in the room at Transport House in 1971 when given the opportunity to think again about whether Anthony Wedgwood Benn proposed that the Labour this is the future they wish to bequeath their children Party, when returned to office, should hold a referendum and grandchildren. on our membership of the European Common Market. We should be able to make those decisions protected, He could not get a seconder for that proposal; referendums as far as possible, from the black arts of modern were held by tinpot dictators and banana republics, electioneering. In the last month, Mr Johnson and not by mature parliamentary democracies. My old Mr Cummings have been working to the Trump-Bannon mentor,the late Lord Callaghan—no relation—remarked playbook. Only the intervention of Parliament and sagely at the time, “That’s one lifeboat we may all have the Supreme Court saved us from an illegal Prorogation, to climb in one day”. So we did in the 1975 referendum, a bounce-out of the EU and a general election fought which was an exercise undertaken to hold a divided on a phony people-versus-Parliament basis. Leaving Labour Party together. The 2016 referendum was held the EU without a deal or via some loophole hinted at for exactly the same reason, this time to paper over the by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which subverts the yawning divisions in the Conservative Party over Europe. will of Parliament, will leave an open wound in our All too often, in all our parties, expediency has politics that will take a generation to heal. There is still topped principle in presenting the case for Europe. In time for the one-nation Tories, the liberals and the the end, we have been hoist by our own petard. Successive social democrats to speak for the liberal and tolerant British Governments have used the same tactics the society that is at ease with itself and its neighbours. SNP has used in Scotland: it takes credit for everything But time is short and the time for action is now. that goes right and blames Westminster for everything Fifty-odd years ago, I visited Strasbourg for the that goes wrong. For 40 years, successive British first time as a junior official of the Labour Party. I Governments have taken the credit for the influence remember how we were greeted then: not as people and prosperity that membership of the EU has brought, who had won the war, but as a country admired for its while blaming the Brussels bureaucrats for any tough good governance and the rule of law. There was a decisions that had to be implemented. It was perhaps desire to see this country play a leading role at the not surprising that the case for Europe, which has heart of Europe. My son—now about the same age as been undersold for 40 years, fell victim to a Brexit I was then—works in the space industry in Germany campaign of such mendacity and falsehood. as part of a multinational European team. I asked him Some of the damage we are now experiencing could what the reaction of his colleagues was. He said, perhaps have been avoided if we had not rushed to “Dad, it’s a kind of bemused sadness”. From how we engage Article 50. In so doing, we have arrived at a were met in the 1960s to that bemused sadness now is point where we are in very real danger of crashing out something that we should all ponder. of the EU without a deal—something which was never put to the British people in 2016. It is absurd to 5.31 pm pretend that the 2016 decision was as informed about the truth and consequences of us leaving Europe then Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB): My Lords, it is a as we are now by the realities that have been laid bare little hard to take note of something—the UK’s over the past three years. withdrawal from the European Union—that may or may not happen. It is harder still to predict how it will In the Times on Saturday, Philip Hammond—only turn out, a task that I happily leave to the large recently Chancellor of the Exchequer—wrote: number of your Lordships whose political antennae “The radicals advising Boris do not want a deal. Like the are more finely tuned than mine. However, there is one Marxists on the Labour left, they see the shock of a disruptive aspect of the withdrawal process of which I take note no-deal Brexit as a chance to re-order our economy and society”. and express concern: the strain that it is placing on the He points out very clearly that the Prime Minister is system by which we are governed. backed in this strategy by, Our constitutional settlement is based on the “speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit—and there is accountability of the Executive to Parliament, and on only one outcome that works for them: a crash-out no-deal Brexit the rule of law. These are foundational principles, to that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring”. which our utter fidelity should not be in doubt, but We are told by the political analysts that it was the successive Governments have been tempted to stray elderly and the left-behinds who provided the Brexiteers from both. Understandably frustrated in their attempts with their majority in 2016. In my youth I read a book to implement the referendum result, they have identified called The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists, which an alternative pole of attraction: the so-called will of tells of how those who have the least are complicit in the people, as expressed, however tentatively and their own exploitation. If we crash out without a deal enigmatically, in that vote in 2016. it will be the elderly and the left-behinds who bear the The previous Government may not have always brunt of the consequences that follow, while speculators welcomed their accountability to Parliament or done make a killing in the chaos that follows. all they could to defend the rule of law, notably This is not the Eton wall game: get over the line any against the description of senior judges as “enemies of way you can, dust yourself down, all shake hands and the people”. However, as the compelling drama series move on. This is about the future of our country for Brexit enters its fourth season, it is the current Government the rest of this century. Those who have to live with who have jumped the shark. The principle of executive the consequences of that decision—the young—have accountability to Parliament was not only threatened the right to vote again on the matter, and those who but, as the Supreme Court unanimously found, breached 1709 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1710 when Parliament was prorogued without sufficient from the fiasco that is Brexit, let us hold fast to that reason. The Government have appeared at best indifferent and make it the basis on which we build for ourselves a to the rule of law in their repeated assertions that we better future. will leave on 31 October with or without a deal. The Act of Parliament that takes the fulfilment of that promise out of the Government’s hands is barely 5.36 pm acknowledged, save for the purpose of designating it, quite inaccurately, as the surrender Act. Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab): My Lords, let us remind ourselves that the case for leaving the European The legal editor of the Times this morning reports a Union is to reclaim the legislative sovereignty that we Cabinet Minister briefing that, lent to the European Communities in 1972—and that “Mr Johnson would refuse to sign a letter requesting an is a prize of great value. The delegation of so much extension even if the Supreme Court ordered him to”. policy and legislative responsibility to the democratically Whether or not such brazen words are followed through, defective institutions of the European Union has been, the rather significant principle that we must all obey I believe, a powerful factor in the growing disaffection the law is corroded merely by their being spoken. with parliamentary democracy that we have witnessed These are destructive themes indeed: people versus in our country. To take back these responsibilities Parliament; people versus the courts; people versus gives us an opportunity to renew our democracy. the laws; people versus Brussels, Ireland, foreign states Our country is indeed “full of passionate intensity”; or foreign powers; Brexit as a World War II re-enactment. that is not surprising, because Brexit is a struggle for Then, for good measure, there is more: people versus the soul of the nation and the future of our democracy. the BBC; people versus the universities; people versus When people were asked in 2016 to vote to leave or to the elites—other elites, that is, never those who are remain, they were in effect asked, “Do you wish to whipping up the outrage. Those themes are destructive, preserve the status quo?”. That question prompted an not least, because these populist calls are not the outpouring of long pent-up anger against elites and a preserve of any single party or grouping, but might in howl from those who had been failed by the neoliberal future prove just as attractive to Governments of a orthodoxy practised by all parties in government. different, and even more dangerous, colour. The neglect Many leavers now take the view that their Parliament of fundamentals, and the coarsening of our national is intent on cheating them, while many remainers are dialogue, are genies more easily released than put back fearful of the mob. This is a dangerous state of affairs in the bottle. and we urgently need an access of moderation and Thank goodness for our Supreme Court, which has reason. decisively and dispassionately applied the relevant To resume self-government in the sense that Brexit principles, conducting itself before the eyes of a watching would permit is not to consign our nation to Faragism, world without fear or favour, affection or ill will. to reaction, to racism and to xenophobia. It will be Relied upon in its judgments in both Miller cases was open to us to choose to be a liberal and internationalist the Case of Proclamations 1610, in which Sir Edward society, and that is what I believe people will want to Coke set limits on the prerogative power of the monarch. choose. For the centre-left, so unconfident about a At one meeting between the two men the King was post-Brexit future, the challenge is to put forward a famously described as, vision of a sustainable economy, social justice and “looking and speaking fiercely with bended fist, offering to policies for climate change, and to win elections. strike”, It is hard to see how compromise between the leave him, whereupon Coke fell flat on all fours and beseeched and remain positions can be achieved. Leavers see the the King to pardon his zeal. Brexit issue in terms of freedom and democracy; The pressures on modern judges may not be quite remainers choose to frame Brexit in terms of the in that league but plans to tame the judges need to be economy and standards of living. These two sets of strongly resisted. The transparency of the Supreme considerations do not engage. The withdrawal deal, Court is already exemplary: 4.4 million people are said which I believe was an honourable attempt to find a to have accessed its live stream on the first morning of compromise, was rejected vehemently by both sides of the Miller-Cherry case—hoping no doubt to catch the the argument on three occasions. noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The fine work of the Is the present condition of our politics therefore a Judicial Appointments Commission, with its substantial massive failure? There is certainly immense frustration lay element, deserves to be better known. But the in the country and a paralysis of decision-taking. The judiciary cannot and should not be made more directly parties appear to have descended into chaos. There is accountable to “the people”, or even to their too much excessive language, whether of surrender or representatives in Parliament. The true independence of catastrophe, in our political discourse. Abuse and of our judges, bred into them from their early years in threats abound. It was very wrong for the Prime the Inns of Court and admired around the globe, is as Minister, in a system of parliamentary government, to vital to our constitutional integrity as it is to our rouse the people against Parliament. He should desist standing in the commercial world. from the use of populist language and seek to speak Democracy, properly understood, is about so much for the country as a whole. Among the many divisions more than winner-takes-all populism. It is: inclusive, in politics is that between those politicians who seek to tolerant, pluralistic; founded on respect for law and appeal to, institutions; a mechanism for not only quantifying but “the better angels of our nature”, reconciling our differences. Whatever else we may lose and those who conjure demons. 1711 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1712

[LORD HOWARTH OF NEWPORT] 5.43 pm On the other hand, it could be said that what has been happening in our politics is rather admirable. Lord Tugendhat (Con): My Lords, there is one There is a mighty contest between politicians who matter on which I am able to agree with the Prime have passionately held but conflicting views of what Minister: that the Government should get on with will be for the good of the country.When the Government Brexit. As much as I regret the result of the referendum, have been unable to advance, Parliament has chosen I think it has to be honoured, as indeed do the pledges to take the initiative; the Speaker has upheld the right in the major parties’ manifestos in the 2017 election. It of the House of Commons to do so; politicians have grieves me to make this point, but I also fear that, after worked across party boundaries and some have been all that has happened, it is no longer practical to think willing to sacrifice their careers for their principles; in terms of a return to the status quo ante and Britain and the Supreme Court has proved an effective check simply resuming its position in the EU as if nothing on arbitrary government—the Prime Minister should had happened. never have made that stupid and improper attempt to Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, I prorogue Parliament for five weeks. wish the Government well in their efforts to secure a Whichever view noble Lords may take, we now deal; I hope they succeed and I look forward to need as quickly as possible a resolution to the essential supporting it if they do. This brings me to the first Brexit issue of whether we leave or remain, and we point on which I disagree with the Prime Minister: the need a return to mutual respect and reconciliation. repeated assertions by him and his allies that it is But I fear that neither a referendum nor a general somehow because of remainer plots and prevarications election will produce those outcomes. that we are still in the EU. The noble and learned Meanwhile, as we look at the time horizon between Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, referred to this. now and 31 October, it is I suppose possible, although The reason why we are still in the EU is, above all, that it seems unlikely, that the Prime Minister will negotiate the Prime Minister—before he became Prime Minister— a deal with the European Union. If he does, that deal and other leavers in the Conservative Party, among will presumably be the withdrawal deal with the backstop our so-called allies in the Democratic Unionist Party tweaked. But for many leavers that will be viewed as and in the Labour Party would not support Mrs May’s Brexit in name only. efforts to secure a deal. Far more people who voted I will quote Professor David Collins, professor of remain in the referendum supported her than opposed international economic law at City University: her, and it was the so-called leavers who created the difficulties. “We must keep in mind that there are many features of the Withdrawal Agreement which are just as bad as the Backstop, but My next point of disagreement with the Prime which have received far less attention, notably from our Prime Minister concerns his insistence on a departure date Minister. The Withdrawal Agreement would maintain the supremacy regardless of terms. To announce in advance that one of EU law over the UK, including new laws created by the EU over which the UK would have no voice. This means that UK will walk away from a negotiation on a given date courts would be required to strike down Acts of Parliament if means announcing in advance when one will be giving they are determined to be inconsistent with EU law. Worse, the up the struggle. I have to say that if ever there were an jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice would be retained, act of surrender, it is that. Instead of leaving in a huff, either directly or through a dispute settlement system modelled like a child not getting its way in a game, the Government on the one the EU has with the Ukraine through which a owe it to the nation to stay at the table until they get notionally neutral tribunal would be bound on issues of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Since the UK would have no judge on the the best deal they can. That is what Mrs Thatcher did ECJ, it would effectively be under the jurisdiction of a foreign during the epic struggle over the British budget negotiation, court”. which I remember all too well on a personal basis. Have we come this far for that? What kind of sovereignty That is what Mrs Thatcher did and what the Government is that? There will be anger if that is the nature of the should do now. This point is particularly apposite in deal, and it is very questionable whether the House of the light of all the documents concerning the Commons would vote for it. Government’s plans that were issued just before this Alternatively, we may leave with “no deal”—I use debate. Obviously, like everybody else, I have only had that as a term of art; the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, an opportunity to glance at them, but a glance is quite explained that there are many deals that mitigate the sufficient to show that they contain a number of new notion of an absolute no deal—should one of the elements, to put it mildly, and move a number of member states of the European Union veto an extension. goalposts. To expect our negotiating partners to get I believe that that would not be a catastrophe. We their minds around all that and reach conclusions in would of course have been much better prepared the time allotted is really asking too much. for such a contingency had the previous Chancellor, As the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, pointed Mr Hammond, not forbade further public expenditure out, there is all the difference in the world between a on preparations for no deal at a crucial phase—but the deal and no deal, between an orderly and a disorderly present Chancellor, Mr Javid, is seeking to make up departure. Leaving is a massive step: it changes the for lost time. Yes, we would go through choppy waters, whole direction of Britain’s trade and external relations but we would go through no hurricane. We could come after a period of over 40 years. It is vital that such a through, as we have come through many periods of manoeuvre be conducted with the minimum disruption economic disruption and difficulty before. Then, as possible. As older Members of this House will recall, we worked towards a free trade agreement, we would when we joined the European Community, as it then be doing so with our heads held high as a self- was, we had a transition period in order to adjust to governing nation. the disciplines, the rules and so forth we were taking on. 1713 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1714

We had a transition period going in and it would be would be many disappointed people who voted leave greatly in our interest to have a transition period going conscientiously, but many of them now recognise the out. I say that not just because short-term disruption impossibility of leaving without massive disadvantage. will cause pain to the British people—whether it is Many also recognise how international circumstances more pain or, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said it have changed: the dangers of an expansionist China, will be, less pain—but because it is certainly going to an aggressive Russia, a dangerous Iran, a still explosive be disadvantageous. I have not heard anybody argue Middle East and the mercurial unpredictability of that the consequences of a no-deal departure would President Trump’s United States. actually be beneficial to the economy. In addition, our citizens increasingly see combating So, there is that short-term reason but also, the climate change as a priority and appreciate the EU’s manner in which we leave will create the platform on massive contribution to that effort. Young people, which we will be building for the future. If we are, as more even than in 2016, value their freedom to study far as possible, to minimise the disadvantages of leaving and work throughout the EU. More people now see the European Union and maximise the opportunities the value of European co-operation in research and it may offer, we need to go about the process in a innovation, security and policing, law enforcement deliberate and orderly fashion. Growing apart from and co-operation in civil law. Yet, if these new proposals the European Union should be a managed process, on the Irish border are rejected—as well they may like separating conjoined twins, not some exercise be—we are threatened with an immediate end to all carried out in a rush in order to meet an arbitrary those benefits in a no-deal Brexit, with all its catastrophic timetable. One reason we are in the mess we are is that consequences, graphically set out in the Yellowhammer those who campaigned to leave the European Union documents, because our apparent willingness to accept had no idea what means were required to do so. They no deal is said to increase the chance of securing a wanted an end but they did not understand, or did not deal. think about, the means. If we were to crash out now, We now finally have the Government’s outline whether it will be as easy as my noble friend Lord proposals to replace the backstop. The conduct of Lilley says or as difficult as others say, that would be Ireland and the EU to date suggests that they are not the worst possible basis for building for the future, for so easily cowed and are too sophisticated to be threatened minimising the disadvantages and for taking advantage into accepting them against their interest. So was of the opportunities. Parliament in passing the Benn Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, my noble friend 5.50 pm Lord Campbell and others have questioned how the Government may respond. Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD): My Lords, we have repeatedly heard this week the Conservative Yesterday, we celebrated the opening of the legal conference slogan: “Get Brexit Done”, followed by, year with international leaders of the legal profession, “then we can get on with our domestic priorities”. who have long admired Britain as a standard-bearer That is an entirely false prospectus. Deal or no deal, if for the rule of law. The rule of law requires more than we leave the EU, our leaving on 31 October or on any obedience to our courts, although the Supreme Court other date is only the first stage in the process. No has fully demonstrated its quality and independence serious commentator doubts that, if we leave, we will in striking down the purported Prorogation. As the be preoccupied by our future relations with the EU for noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out, the rule of at least a decade. law also requires that the Government conscientiously strive to act according to law. The Benn Act is now the What is more, the Government’s approach to our law. The Government must seek to comply with it, not domestic priorities involves spending commitments as merely because they fail to find a loophole but because unbelievable as the £350 million a week on the leave our system depends on respect for the rule of law and bus. Such commitments depend on continuing economic the sovereignty of Parliament. If the Benn Act’sconditions success, when all economists agree that leaving the EU apply, will the Government conscientiously strive to on any terms, let alone with no deal, would carry agree an extension with the EU? Then there can be an major economic cost. Notwithstanding that, Mr Johnson election or a binding referendum. today advanced a tax-cutting agenda. Despite all those contradictions, the Government assert that “Get Brexit I add that it is in no way undemocratic to allow the Done” is the people’s demand, but that assertion, in its people to revisit a generalised decision made in the unqualified terms, is unsupported by any evidence. spring of 2016 and express their view again in the light of the present circumstances and new knowledge at Certainly, the electorate is sick of the hostility, the the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020. Let us have political paralysis, the corrosion of our public life and an end to this loose talk of Parliament against the the failure of the Government to do anything but people. At the heart of our democracy is the principle Brexit, but “Get Brexit Done” will not address that. that Parliament represents the people. It is a principle No, the real majority is for the blunt proposition: worth defending. “Make it stop!”. The simple truth is that the only way to make it stop is to abandon Brexit altogether, whether by a remain vote in a referendum or by revoking our 5.55 pm Article 50 notice. Lord Birt (CB): My Lords, we are mired, the road Yes, there would be national embarrassment, but to our present misfortune littered with miscalculation we would at least be turning back from disaster before and error. A referendum called to resolve a party we suffered the consequences of leaving. Yes, there division has torn that party apart. Remain was the 1715 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1716

[LORD BIRT] Prime Minister the way forward—that would be a anticipated answer,but after a clear-sighted, if misleading, massive distraction and would not begin to answer the campaign on the one hand and a somewhat clumsy exam question before us. and unconvincing one on the other, a country unsettled We are in 1939. If a deal is not forthcoming in the by the 2008 financial crisis, flat incomes, public sector short term, parliamentarians must forgo manoeuvring austerity—and, as we know from surveys, a rapid rise in their party interest—this happens in all parties—and in immigration—gave an unexpected answer. In advance act only in the national interest. In the absence of a of the negotiation with the EU that followed, red lines deal, after a vote of confidence a temporary national were drawn around our future trading relationship with Government should be formed, made up of members by far our biggest trading partner without any serious from all the main political parties, with independent national consideration of the alternatives. Article 50 leadership and constituted for only one set of purposes: was triggered without any prior agreement with the to negotiate a Brexit deal, hold a confirmatory referendum EU on the framework for negotiation: a disastrous and call an election immediately the result is known. decision which further weakened our already poor I hope there will be a confirmatory referendum for, negotiating hand. whatever the answer, it will be emphatic and will put an end to our misery one way or another. I see nothing All that could then be agreed with the EU were the at all wrong with the notion of a second referendum. divorce terms: the critical issues about our future In every other walk of life—on a company board, for trading and other relationships were deferred. Thus instance—an initial decision in principle would return cornered, we have arrived in the bizarre position of for ratification once due diligence is complete and the having to agree a backstop arrangement covering the terms of the final deal are set. It is the natural process most sensitive land border in Europe in the event that for any important and complex matter. future trade negotiations may fail. Northern Ireland is where the Brexit rubber truly hits the road. There is one bright light shining in the murk. In 1688, the Bill of Rights asserted the supremacy of The Brexit process intensified division when every Parliament over the tyranny of kings. More than attempt, however difficult, should have been made to 300 years later, a combination of a bold and courageous promote reconciliation. It was not. As a result, we are Speaker and the calm lucidity of our Supreme Court more divided now as a nation that we have been for has once again established the supremacy of Parliament, hundreds of years. In the nearly seven years since this time over an overreaching and divisive group David Cameron gave his Bloomberg speech, we have within a single party. The Speaker and the Supreme been transfixed by this single issue and have given Court have together made history, and they may well scant attention to all the other matters that press prove our salvation. on us. 6.03 pm As a nation, we need rapidly to recover our composure Lord Livermore (Lab): My Lords, in the House of and speedily to resolve the way forward on Brexit. We Commons one week ago, the Prime Minister delivered must now, I fear, enter the realm of least worst options. a Statement demeaning in its tone and inflammatory At all costs, we must avoid a car crash Brexit. As in its language. Deliberately provocative, it was clearly Sir Ivan Rogers memorably declared, there is no such an exercise in distraction, designed specifically to divert thing as a no-deal Brexit—the noble Lord, Lord Marks, attention from the Supreme Court’s ruling 24 hours made essentially the same point a moment ago. For, earlier that the suspension of Parliament was unlawful. the day after we leave, we would still have to negotiate But while the Prime Minister’s Statement was reckless, a trade deal with our neighbours, the biggest economic it was also revealing, providing us with the clearest bloc in the world, in circumstances where our hand insight yet into the no-deal playbook, the rhetorical would be weaker still and where feelings would be strategy designed to achieve the most extreme form of even more bruised than they are now. Our nightmare Brexit. could well continue for another seven years. The first and most pernicious part of this strategy is So, like it or not, the least worst option is likely to to question the patriotism of their opponents, duly be Theresa May’s deal reinstated, with perhaps a few articulated by the Prime Minister in the phrase “surrender face-saving tweaks—as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, Act”. Although undoubtedly offensive, this phrase said. The non-binding political declaration is a perfectly also betrays an extraordinarily warped world-view. acceptable basis for future negotiation, and we may Like the Japanese soldier emerging from the jungle, have to swallow the risk of the backstop or some unaware that the war had ended some 60 years earlier, variation of it—however unpalatable—for fear of members of this Government deploy confrontational something worse if today’s alternative offered by the language, unable to comprehend just how much the Prime Minister is not accepted. world has changed or where Britain’s national interest now lies. They fail to realise that we are not in a war; We should know within weeks or even days if this that we will not succeed by standing alone, isolated; or Government can produce a deal that a majority in that cutting ourselves off from our closest allies will Parliament can stand behind and that the EU will only diminish, internationally and economically, the accept. But if this does not happen, a general election country they profess to feel pride in. It is not patriotic cannot be the response. It would waste yet more time to knowingly make Britain poorer and less powerful, and the outcome is profoundly uncertain, as Sir John and the only thing that risks being surrendered by Curtice opines and as Theresa May, from her own this process is Britain’s prosperity and reputation in experience, can surely testify. Nor is impeaching the the world. 1717 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1718

Having sought to undermine the motives of their As each of the once-claimed benefits of Brexit have opponents, the second step in the no-deal playbook is in turn disintegrated, the Government are now left to distort the verdict of the referendum and the mandate only with the mundane entreaty to “get Brexit done”. it delivered. The vision of Brexit that 52% of voters Gone are the promised sunlit uplands. Instead, in the put their faith in three years ago carried with it some Prime Minister’s words, let us “put Brexit behind us”. very specific promises. In 2016, Boris Johnson and This is the fifth and final step in their strategy: to those who are now leading members of his Cabinet pretend Brexit is an event, not a process—a chore that, promised that, once completed, frees us up to do the things we enjoy. “there won’t be a sudden change that disrupts the economy”; Yet having first built a fallacy, they are now selling a fantasy. The truth is that, with or without a deal, any that: form of Brexit would be only the start, not the end, of “The idea that our trade will suffer … is silly”; a long and painful journey. An entire generation would that, be consumed with a process that would devour our “we will negotiate a new settlement with the EU”;—[Official politics and diminish our resources. Gone would be Report, Commons, 10/9/15; col. 529.] the time and money to tackle the challenges that first drove Brexit or the priorities that have been neglected and that: ever since. In reality, getting Brexit done is yet another “There will be no change to the border between Northern attempted deception. Ireland and the Republic”. These are the promises made by the proponents of This is the no-deal playbook: a strategy to crash Brexit, and these are the promises their mandate required Britain over the cliff edge to achieve the most extreme them to deliver. form of Brexit and fulfil their long-held ideological However, it is impossible to reconcile these promises obsession. It is a strategy designed to bend the facts—to with a no-deal Brexit, an outcome that the Government’s insist black is white. However, let us not be fooled into own analysis shows will reduce GDP by 9.7%, increase thinking that this is the strategy of a confident project borrowing by £30 billion, disrupt trade to the extent that believes it is winning. It is the last resort of an set out in Operation Yellowhammer and inevitably ever-more desperate Government; of a project built create a hard border on the island of Ireland. Yet still on lies now colliding with reality. the Prime Minister seeks to misappropriate this mandate, distorting it to impose a totally incompatible version 6.09 pm of Brexit, gaslighting us into believing that no deal somehow respects the referendum and honours the The Earl of Clancarty (CB): My Lords, the noble result. The reality is that there is no mandate for any Lord, Lord Callanan, wishes to take note of the UK’s Brexit that fails to deliver on the specific promises withdrawal from the EU. However, as a country we made. The problem for the Government is that these have not done so yet and, according to the polls of the promises are fundamentally undeliverable; you cannot last 18 months, the majority view is that we should not leave the European Union and retain the benefits that do so. It is essential that those of us who want to being a member provides. remain in the EU continue to make that case, even as others wrongly believe that that debate ended in 2016. So, the third step in their strategy is to assert that This is crucial, in part because a second referendum democracy demands they deliver something else entirely. looks increasingly likely, in part because the public Despite having no personal mandate and heading a over the last three years have continued to learn what minority Government, the Prime Minister claims that being in—and indeed outside—the EU means. Last, by pursuing a policy nobody voted for, he is somehow but by no means least, it is crucial because we are in a upholding democracy. He says that elected MPs who continuouslychangingenvironmentwhich,asweapproach point out that this is not what their constituents voted this 31 October deadline, is already causing huge for should “stand aside”. The truth is that it emphatically problems for business and for ordinary citizens. is not democratic to promise one thing and then seek to deliver something completely different. That is the Yesterday at the Conservative Party conference, the opposite of democracy. When we have travelled so far Home Secretary said that free movement will end from what was promised in 2016, the only democratic “once and for all”. She added that instead we would route is to put the decision back to the British people have an Australian-style points system. It may be news in a confirmatory public vote. to the Home Secretary that we have had such a system Having failed to deliver their impossible promises, for the last 13 years. Introduced originally through the fourth step in the no-deal playbook is to deflect secondary legislation, it has proved more than a headache responsibility for this failure on to anyone but themselves. since it was formulated—that is an understatement— The Prime Minister and half his Cabinet may have creating increasing difficulties for,among others,academics twice voted against a deal, but it is now the fault of working here or even visiting. The latest among many Opposition MPs that Britain is yet to leave. The Prime recent shocking cases is that of Amber Murrey, an Minister may have acted unlawfully, but it is now the associate professor of geography at Oxford University, fault of the judges for saying so. The Conservative who found out that, appallingly, her children are not Party may have spent months on a leadership election, allowed to join her in the UK from America. If this but it is now the Labour Party’s fault that time is being system is extended to Europe and the hostile environment wasted. When the Government are again found to deepened, it will prove disastrous for academia, research, have failed to come up with workable proposals, it will science and the arts. They need this free movement of course be the EU’s fault that a deal remains elusive. link with Europe to work both ways. 1719 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1720

[THE EARL OF CLANCARTY] seeing the benefits of EU membership and that the We have never had a proper debate about free causes of their grievances lie elsewhere. Austerity, cuts movement in this country, although I sense that beyond to services and the proliferation of food banks are the confines of the Conservative Party conference one nothing to do with the EU, which has been cast as the is now beginning. I applaud the passing of the motion scapegoat throughout, but everything to do with how at the Labour Party conference to support it. Ending our country is governed at home. free movement would end the hopes of many young people wanting to travel to, work in and study in 6.15 pm Europe. One of the leavers’ maxims is “short-term Lord Monks (Lab): My Lords, the Prime Minister pain for long-term gain” but what is important here is said this morning in his Manchester speech that no the permanent negative effect that ending free movement deal, would have, not just on the present generation but on those to come, in curtailing opportunities and lowering “is an outcome for which we are ready”. horizons. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, repeated that in his There would be an equally permanent effect on the introduction to this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord service industries, so many of which depend on free Lilley, has been trying to give some substance to that movement. Service industries are hugely undervalued, optimistic remark. I will focus my remarks on whether yet they account for 80% of the UK economy. The we are ready and the areas in which a no-deal operation possibility of us leaving the single market on 31 October could result in major problems for this country, and is already proving a nightmare for those working in maybe seek a ministerial update on some of the problems services, including many freelancers based here and in with no-deal planning and whether we can assess whether Europe. For them, Brexit is already happening. This is the UK really is ready in a number of key areas. a large group, among whom are musicians and others It is about a month since we learned via a leak in the creative industries, caterers, drivers, interpreters about Operation Yellowhammer. Members of this House and IT workers. The great irony is how much of this will remember that this was a gloomy assessment of work provided by British workers is in demand even as the state of the UK’s preparedness for no deal. However, their livelihoods are on the line, since free movement, the Government, in the shape of the Chancellor of the particularly onward and cross-border movement, is Duchy of Lancaster, explained that Yellowhammer essential to this work. was a worst-case scenario, that the issues flagged up in The noble Lord, Lord Lilley—who is not in his it were being addressed, that the assumptions were place—is wrong about mobility. The CBI says that the being regularly updated, that a review was under way UK would default to third-country status under EU and that substantial progress had been made. The immigration rules if no deal happens. Indeed, some Government continue to make reassuring and optimistic workers are being turned away already and others are noises about there being no problems beyond, in the having their contracts rewritten at length. There is words of Mr Gove, concern and confusion over work permits, tax and “some bumps in the road”. conditions of employment. People are urgently asking So exactly what progress has been made? Can we for guidance on Brexit, which they cannot access as learn whether Mr Gove’s cheerful assessment is still the advice being given is too general. Will the Minister justified, or are the sobering, rather depressing messages promise that the Government will address these concerns of Yellowhammer still blindingly relevant? I will select directly with those affected, and will he write to me a few issues out of many in the Yellowhammer leak. confirming what they intend to do? Perhaps the Minister will be able to bring us up to date As the Minister will know, the EU is taking what on at least some of these in his reply. First, in the event precautions it can to protect its 1.2 million British of no deal, is it still the case that between 50% and citizens—as my noble friend Lord Waverley mentioned— 85% of trucks on the Dover-Calais route are not ready with countries drawing up their own legislation, although for French customs, despite the work that has been ultimately the protection of British citizens should be done on the Calais port facilities? That was what our responsibility. The Minister will be aware that Yellowhammer said. Is it still the case that it could Spain has recently legislated but has included with take three months to sort this out between Dover and that legislation the possibility of vetoing it within two Calais, meaning in the interim that a truck could months if its guarantees are not reciprocated for EU expect to be delayed by between one and a half and citizens here.The Government are providing no analogous two and a half days on that route? legislation—at the very least, there should be a declaratory I read in the paper this morning, rather contrary to system—and it is clearly significantly more difficult what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said, that the chief for many to obtain settled status than the Government executive of Dover had said that a no-deal situation appear to make out. As the Minister will be aware, the would cost Dover £1 billion a week. That did not seem media is reporting people having some awful experiences to me to be too optimistic about what no deal would making those applications. In Spain, in particular—and mean. These are key factors in our future trade relationship in all the other countries—have there been meetings with the European Union. Yellowhammer said there to ensure reciprocity and what has been the outcome was a need for an agricultural food supply chain. Is so far? that yet in place? If so, what is it and how will it work? I raise these specific issues in no way to excuse Perhaps we can be told about that. Brexit but simply because they are urgent. If we leave, Shifting away from trade for a moment, in the event we will become a smaller, greyer and meaner country. of Brexit UK citizens will lose their EU citizenship However, I believe that people are more and more and access to services such as free emergency healthcare 1721 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1722 in other countries. What arrangements are being That is the definition. made to protect and advise British citizens in those The problem arises all because of one word: circumstances? Is anything being planned? Can anything “sovereignty”. What is in that word? Is there such a be done? What steps are being taken to limit expected thing? What about the weather? For temperature, we rises in food prices in the event of no deal—rises that do not seem to mind centigrade rather than Fahrenheit. will impact particularly on the poorer sections of our For distance, metres and centimetres are okay rather society? Finally—this is perhaps an issue that has not than feet and inches. Regarding time, we are about to been addressed in recent debates in this House—how put our clocks back with Europe. On weight, I do not can we stop clashes at sea between UK and EU know about other noble Lords, but I have only kilograms fishermen if existing arrangements on respective shares on my digital scales, not pounds and ounces. We do of the channel, the North Sea and the Irish Sea lapse not seem to object to the same procedures on science with nothing to replace them? We know that some and medical research, terrorism, security, banking fishing fleets are staffed by pretty excitable people in regulations, et cetera. Therefore, we now need a more some countries, probably including parts of the UK. grown-up conversation. As others have said, we are hearing a lot this week Usually,one conversation is enough to change history. about “Get Brexit Done”, but my brief list of questions— It has happened many times before, so why do we not there are many others, not least on the Irish situation, try it now? There are only three people in the room for which I could easily have quoted—shows just how this conversation, which is as it should be: our Prime difficult a no-deal Brexit would be. As others have Minister,the “PM”, and “Them”, the German Chancellor said, 31 October will not be the end, or even the and the French President. This is the conversation that beginning of the end; it will be merely the start of a should take place—it is not too late: tortuous negotiation that will take years, given the accusations and bad faith that will cloud it from the “PM: Lately it seems we can’t talk without arguing. start and the poison in relationships that will develop Them: Well, what do you want now? from any no-deal situation. Does the Minister accept PM: We need to have a little talk, that’s all. that that could be the case, and can he provide us with any enlightenment on progress, or the lack of it, since Them: About what? Operation Yellowhammer and on what a no-deal Brexit PM: We’re through. Out. You know that—31 October. would really mean? Them: We don’t really care whether you come or go. All we care about is that you don’t set a precedent Lord Taverne (LD): My Lords, I had not realised for anyone else. that I was the next speaker— PM: What about the Irish border problem? Baroness Berridge (Con): My Lords, my noble friend Them: Northern Ireland? Where’s that again? Lord Saatchi is here. PM: We want a deal. 6.21 pm Them: Trade deals? Of course. No problem. My Lord Saatchi (Con): My Lords, the Minister was assistant will book a conference call. kind enough to praise your Lordships’ House for its PM: I know it annoys you to set a precedent. I’m stamina. With your Lordships’ permission, I should not asking for any special treatment for us. Just a few like to return the compliment and praise him for the changes in the EU for the benefit of all fellow members. calm and reasonable way in which he has handled our Them: Fellow members! From you! You think only debates. of yourself. You’ve been sulking for years! Variable It has all been a big misunderstanding. You hear it geometry! Two-speed Europe! Opt-outs! said that the people have spoken, that we had the PM: Yes, sorry about that. biggest democratic vote in British history, that we must respect—that is the word used—the will of the Them: And we’re sorry that you’re leaving. people. It is said that we made a decision. It is true. PM: Oh, you didn’t want us to leave? Why didn’t We did make a decision in the referendum. The decision you say that before? was: we cannot decide; we are not sure. The Them: So what? misunderstanding of that result is the cause of all our present difficulties. PM: So, I’ve only got one question for you. We’ve had three years of arguments about our terms for You hear it said that the referendum result was the leaving. How about three minutes on terms for remaining? same as a general election, in which one vote is enough. If we agree to stay, what are you offering? But we, the people, do not agree. We know better. We never challenge a general election result, even if it is a Them: What do you want? victory by only one vote. That is because we know PM: We don’t want anything. We’re leaving anyway. that, if we change our mind, we can change the But you keep saying how sad you are to see us leaving, Government at the next general election. This referendum how bad that would be. is not like that. The result cannot be changed, and Them: So? Go on. therefore one vote is not enough. In the court of public opinion, this would be called a “hung jury” or PM: We want equality. With you two. That’s all. “deadlocked jury”; that is, Not a subordinate. Not a junior member. We don’t “a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended want you to boss us around. And we don’t want to deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or boss you around. Equality. Equal voting rights with supermajority”. you on all EU legislation. 1723 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1724

[LORD SAATCHI] Thirdly, and most controversially, Boris will not be Them: What else? Prime Minister at the end of October but will probably PM: We want to recognise free movement of people, still be leader of his party. Why? He cannot send the but we also want to recognise the legitimate concerns letter that he will be legally obliged to send—he would among members about uncontrolled immigration. All sooner be dead in a ditch. He said that he will not members want that too. disobey the law, but he also states that he will achieve his goal of Brexit by 31 October. The two aims are Them: Is that it? Anything else? incompatible. The Supreme Court will almost certainly PM: No, nothing else. That’s it. ‘Remain-plus’ we find means of making the law prevail. The only course could call it. left for him is to resign as PM or be deposed. Them: Then you’d stay? At this point, my crystal ball clouds over. It begins PM: Yes. to look increasingly likely that, if Boris has not resigned, Them: What about America? America wants us to there will be a vote of no confidence and he will be fail. They think your departure hurts us. America replaced by a temporary Government of national wants you to leave. unity. This will not be led by Corbyn. It is beginning to look likely that someone such as Margaret Beckett PM: They do now, but they’ll come round. would be an acceptable Labour temporary PM. Them: And what about your Parliament? Will they The first act of such a Government must be to go along with it? secure an extension of the date fixed for Article 50, PM: Yes, because it’s the only way to ‘heal the and the second must be to call for a new referendum as wounds’, ‘unite the nation’. the only way to resolve the present impasse. This must Them: And what about us? What do we get out of precede, and cannot be part of, a general election, it? because the referendum must offer a clear choice, this PM: You get what you always wanted: unity, no time based on actual knowledge of what Brexit means. breakaways, no precedent for anyone else. We all stick By contrast, in a general election voters vote for together. Peace, security, and the EU to be a vanguard different parties for a great variety of different reasons. force—a frontier spirit, an economic superpower to It seems that Labour has sensibly come round to this match America and China. What say you? view. Them: OK! Done! Let’s go! When do we start?” There are many problems surrounding the wording of the choice in a referendum, but the obvious clear That conversation would change the course of referendum choice, without a withdrawal treaty, will European history: Britain to have voting power equal be between a no-deal Brexit and remain. A general to that of France and Germany, and reasonable control election is bound to follow. It will be very nasty, with of immigration. It is called leadership, and if Germany the future of democracy at stake. As was eloquently and France accepted that we were equal to them in described by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of votes, which currently we are not, everyone would be Ipswich—and as Boris has made clear—it will be the happy. Remainers would be pleased because it would people against their enemies: Europe, Parliament, the make the case for remain more defensible, as we would courts and lawyers, the Civil Service and anyone who not just be going back to where we were before, and still believes MPs should be representatives, not delegates. leavers would be pleased because it would resolve their No. 1 problem—sovereignty—as we would not be One reason that it will be unlike any previous subordinate to anyone. election is the change in the Conservative Party. I am now in my 10th decade. When I was first elected as an Therefore, I encourage your Lordships’ House to Opposition MP in 1962, I had great respect for eminent end the current dismal choice that we, the people, have Conservative leaders such as Macmillan, Butler,Macleod between the least-worst options that nobody wants. and Carrington, as well as thinkers such as Ian Gilmour. We need a North Star—a guiding light—and your Lordships’ House can help to provide it. We are at a Boris’s Conservative Party has ceased to be the historic moment of maximum British power in Europe. party of parliamentary democracy of Locke and Now all we have to do is use it: one conversation to Burke. It has instead become the party of populist change history. authoritarianism, which has adopted hook, line and sinker the doctrine of Rousseau—that the will of the people, as interpreted by the Government, must prevail 6.28 pm over all dissent, the rule of law and the rights of the Lord Taverne: My Lords, what a delightful speech. individual and minorities. Rousseau’s was the doctrine There was a lot of wisdom in it. preached by Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety, much favoured ever since by every autocrat Let me cast caution to the winds and start by from Mussolini to Hitler to Erdog˘an. Is this really the making three predictions. First, Boris will not get his kind of campaign and party that once-moderate Tories deal. This now seems an almost uncontroversial forecast, are now ready to support? Locke and Burke must be judging by all the comments from Brussels. turning in their graves. Secondly, any challenge to the Benn Act, which the Government seem to ignore, will fail for the reasons 6.34 pm advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. So, without a deal at the end of the EU summit, Boris Lord Dykes (CB): My Lords, I very much thank the will be legally required to send a letter requesting an noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for his remarks. I agree Article 50 extension of the Brexit debate. with every single comment he made. We thank him. 1725 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1726

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I think We now have this change in atmosphere, public he is the only person I have ever seen getting up late in opinion and views. The people’s marches have gone a debate—I have never seen it before. I forgive him from 100,000 originally to 700,000, and to 1 million because he made a very amusing speech. last time—in October last year. I am sure that we are I am also thankful for the speeches by the noble due to see more than that at the march on 19 October. Lords, Lord Livermore, Lord Monks and Lord Taverne, Nearly 70% of the voting public have become anti-Brexit. as well as by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for People may think that that figure sounds too high, but showing once again that the madness is still carrying it is not. It is true from all the analyses given by the on but will not last forever. We know that it is coming various polling examinations and private research. to its nemesis. No one knows when, but I think and The Prime Minister—known for his lack of wisdom hope that it is fairly soon. in all respects, I am afraid—was supported by I liked that, on 5 September, the front page of the 97,000 original votes, mostly from elderly, disgruntled Daily Mirror—a very strongly pro-European newspaper Tory association members. I think that the total Tory —said “Britain’s worst PM”, with a large picture of membership is now 130,000—there may be one or two Boris, of course. It then said: “(since the last one)”. I hangers-on from the previous Brexit Party formation, still very strongly blame Theresa May, who had the UKIP and so on, but I would guess that that is the wonderful opportunity in the election on 8 June 2017 rough figure. That is fewer than the Liberal Democrats, to say, “I have lost the mandate that I was seeking. I who have 140,000 members. We see Labour with more had a 20-point lead when I launched this campaign. than 500,000 members, most of whom are much younger That no longer exists. We must therefore have a national people who, as other speakers have said, regret the consultation in this country about the way forward tragedy of losing free movement in Europe above and what we do, involving everybody”. She did not, all—for their careers, holidays, working, meeting other but repeated the absurd mantra, “Brexit means Brexit”. people, learning languages, all the precious things that The nightmare continued. the younger generation in this multinational and multi- ethnic country want in the future. We still have the nightmare, with an even worse Prime Minister—I think I help Theresa May a little bit Instead we have this: the majority against Europe is by saying that—in the form of Boris Johnson. He is a only in England. The majorities in Northern Ireland person who has only a glancing relationship with true and Scotland, and now in Wales—it has changed facts and says that he definitely did not do something there—are strongly pro-Europe. That is the reality. We but cannot actually remember, which is a unique new must show this phoney PM with his phoney views that way for him to say, “Once again, I am indulging in a the time is now up.The DUP remains the most unpopular terminological inexactitude, as I am accustomed to and unsavoury party in Northern Ireland. Its views do”. What a pity that we have this nightmare continuing are dismissed by more and more people there. Brexit is and it is taking longer than we were originally hoping— absurd. England needs to grow up and live in the real those of us who wanted, after the 8 June election, to world with the other countries of the United Kingdom. see a change and common sense beginning to prevail. The Conservative Party used to be a wonderful and 6.40 pm encouraging party of moderate views. I was a member Viscount Chandos (Lab): My Lords, however much of it and an MP in the House of Commons for many all of us are suffering from Brexit fatigue, we should years. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said, there welcome the fact that we are able to hold this debate were very excellent, eminent people—Harold Macmillan, today.The Prime Minister would like to have announced Edward Heath and others led the party to great success. the submission of a novel “first and final” offer to the Macmillan was a convinced European, partly because EU solely to the party faithful in Manchester, without of his memory of the First World War. the risk of any parliamentary interrogation at all. The lead that we get in the Lords now is because the While it is deeply regrettable that he did not instead Lords has a built-in majority for Europe, which is make a Statement to the House of Commons, we can always very comforting for us who join that majority in this House try to provide a warm-up to what I hope in these debates.Wethank above all the Liberal Democrat will be tomorrow’s main event in the other place. group in this House, who have the maximalist attitude I should like to address two principal points in the towards positive views on Europe.They believe themselves short time available: first, on the damage that the à outrance—for others, of course—that there should Prime Minister continues to do to our constitution not even be any further contest and that we should go and parliamentary democracy, which in turn makes a straight into the withdrawal legislation and then decide non-damaging resolution of the Brexit problem even to extend the date. harder to achieve and, secondly,giving an initial reaction This stance that we have now in the Lords also to the proposals published by the Government this mirrors the striking change in public opinion away afternoon and what they may imply. from the 2016 referendum. We need to remind ourselves “There is one part of the British system that seems to be on that it was advisory—giving an opinion. Cameron the blink … if Parliament were a school, Ofsted would be shutting deciding to say, “I will immediately accept the result of it down”— that referendum” was a matter for him—yet another the Prime Minister said this in his speech in Manchester mistake by a Tory Prime Minster in more recent earlier today, having been unsuccessful in trying to times. We are living with the effects of that. His book play the role of Ofsted. It is just the latest comment in has not convinced many people of his wisdom as a the relentless stream of denigration to which he has Prime Minister. subjected Parliament, let alone the arrogant contempt 1727 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1728

[VISCOUNT CHANDOS] whole is the opposite of the one that could deliver a he has shown for the Supreme Court. Neither the future relationship with the EU with minimal negative Prime Minister nor any other individual has the authority economic impact. to interpret the decision of the 2016 referendum and I look forward, without holding my breath, to determine its implementation. That authority lies with hearing the Minister answer the questions of my noble Parliament. and learned friend Lord Goldsmith as to what the In reasserting that the 2016 referendum was advisory, Government’sintentions are in relation to the obligations or, in the terminology of the 2015 House of Commons under the Benn Act. In any event, as with other noble Briefing Paper, “pre-legislative” and “consultative”, I Lords, it seems to me that we are heading very soon to do not think its result can or should be lightly dismissed; a general election. While I fear that the tone set for it but Parliament is mandated to implement it. Indeed, by the Conservative Party will be deeply negative, I on 16 June 2015, during the Committee stage of the believe that the British people and electorate will see EU referendum Bill, the Conservative Minister said: through that. “The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for 6.47 pm both the 1975 referendum … and the Scottish independence vote”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/15; col. 231.] Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, there was a very In turn, the High Court, in its ruling on the first Gina interesting quotation in the Times this morning. On Miller case in November 2016, wrote that the EU the leader page, there is always a tiny column headed, referendum Act, “The last word”, which today was a quotation from Aldous Huxley: “falls to be interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”. democracy … a vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the That is something that the Prime Minister and all European Union would inevitably leave for future decision many members of his Government should take to heart, important questions relating to the legal implementation of withdrawal because there are two salient facts that should run from the European Union”. through this debate and two underlying facts that we Does the Minister believe that Parliament has been all neglect at our peril and that of our country. fulfilling its proper, legitimate role and that the impasse of the past nine months reflects the intractability of The first salient fact is this: in a bitterly divided reconciling the Government’s multiple objectives and nation, we have cause to give thanks to those brave the range of public opinion, rather than, as the Prime Members in another place who put country before Minister said, it refusing to deliver Brexit and refusing party and who—conscious of the fact that the vast to do anything constructive? Could this Parliament majority of people in this country do not want to leave have delivered Brexit? If the last Conservative Government without a deal, and that Parliament would be neglecting had behaved constructively and consensually, yes, I its duty if we left without a deal—voted even knowing believe it already could have done. Could this Parliament that they would probably be expelled from their party still deliver Brexit? The past failures have polarised and mine. We all owe them a great deal. We also owe a positions, and the language and behaviour of the great deal to the Justices of the Supreme Court who, Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, notably far from being enemies of the people, have shown that the Attorney-General, have made it even harder. they understand what is necessary for the continuance of parliamentary democracy. Will this Parliament approve a Brexit deal based on The two underlying facts that I ask all your Lordships the proposals contained in the Prime Minister’s letter to bear in mind are these: we would be letting down today to the President of the European Commission? this country if we allowed anyone to lead us into an First, the EU would have to agree to them and, I have election which was Parliament versus the people. As to say, the rudeness and hypocrisy of the letter’s opening has been said earlier in this debate, Parliament is the paragraph set a deeply unhelpful tone, even if there is representative of the people.Individually in constituencies greater willingness on the Government’spart to negotiate and collectively at the other end of this corridor, those than they have signalled. I do not believe that the EU men and women are not the enemies of the people. would have been any more likely to agree a deal based Anyone who seeks to engineer an election where that on these proposals had the Benn Act not been passed; is the underlying theme is himself an enemy of the or that the Prime Minister’s attempts to signal an people. The other underlying fact is that we cannot be ability to ignore or get around it enhances his negotiating proud Members of this House if we do not recognise—as position. I think we all do—how important it is that laws that In the, frankly, unlikely event of the deal as tabled are passed are obeyed. being agreed with the EU, will, and should, Parliament I have a Question on the Order Paper tomorrow approve it? It is, as the leader of the Opposition has which I hope might flush out from the Government said, the answer to the dilemma that has run through our “worse than Theresa May’s deal”. deliberations since we came back from the non- Reading between the lines of the proposed “two borders, Prorogation. How do we achieve an exit on 31 October four years” approach to the Irish border, it appears and, at the same time, comply with the law? Of course, certainly to threaten the delicate and complex balance like my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, who made an that underpins the peace process, even if, by some admirable speech which I commend to everyone, I miracle of science fiction, no new physical infrastructure wish the Prime Minister success in getting a deal. But is introduced at or near the border. The direction of what a complete defeat it would be for him, the Prime travel towards a free trade agreement for the UK as a Minister of a minority Government, who has himself 1729 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1730 been responsible for expelling some of the finest members What has happened since? Other people have voted of his party, if he gave up negotiations when they were many times, here and in the other place. According to perhaps approaching success. information supplied by the ever-helpful House of Of course, we cannot go on for ever and ever. I am Lords Library, MPs have voted 227 times on UK/EU one of those, a bitterly disappointed remainer, who matters since 23 June 2016 and your Lordships have has accepted from the word go that we have to come voted 52 times. In other words, the people were out. However, the Prime Minister himself should given one opportunity, but MPs and Peers were given remember, and Mr Jacob “languid” Rees-Mogg should 279 chances, and counting. Why is an out-of-date remember, that they voted for the deal that Theresa consultative referendum decision still thought to be valid? May had negotiated. If we begin, because it is beginning, When does the Minister think it will cease to be valid? a long, protracted series of further negotiations on the Surely, people are entitled to take the view that, if MPs basis of a quarrel with our European friends and and Peers have had 279 chances to vote on this crucial neighbours—on crumbled hopes—what chance do we issue during the last 39 months, they, the people, ought have of being able to work out a long-lasting, constructive to have a second chance now that they are more relationship with them? informed. This Government are not on firm foundations. The stakes are high. Parliament has a real role to play, but I beg my noble friend to recognise—it is 6.58 pm important that we all do—that, if Parliament is trampled Lord Naseby (Con): My Lords, we are all well aware on because the Prime Minister wants to stick to a that, for the last three years, the country and Parliament particular time on a particular day, that will not serve have wrestled with the problem of Brexit. I therefore the national interest. pay tribute to the current Government for the way in which the Prime Minister, the Ministers in charge of 6.54 pm Brexit details and, in particular, the hundreds if not thousands of civil servants are wrestling with producing Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD): My Lords, this is a workable basis on which we can move forward with my first appearance on matters European since the either a deal or no deal. Article 50 notice was triggered. Your Lordships may The noble Lord, Lord Monks, asked whether there well say that it has all been said many times, but not by had been any progress over the last six months. I can me. That is true up to a point, but my contribution has only vouch for one particular industry in Northampton, to be put into context. which is a distribution base. I am told by the hauliers The referendum took place on 23 June 2016—three in Northampton that, yes, they are confident that they years and three months ago. Many of us believe that can continue as they do today under any changes that the leave campaign put out a false prospectus. We can are made, and that their relationship with Calais and all say all sorts of things that we thought were wrong: other ports is a good one now and will continue as £350 million a week on the bus; easy-peasy to get a such. So I say a big thank you to them, and to all the good deal—by the way, last week that changed to a people who are involved at the moment. “walk in the park”. There was not a word on the case I do not say thank you, frankly, to those MPs such for the UK giving leadership. There was no mention of as Messrs Grieve, Letwin and Burt. Alistair Burt is my the problems that leaving the EU would bring to MP and was the Tory side of the Benn Bill. I do not Ireland, north and south, and the potential damage to think that they did play a role—or at least not a role the peace process. There was no mention of the threat that I have ever seen in Parliament before. I do not say to the UK as a whole and the potential of a Scottish thank you to the two former Prime Ministers. I hardly secession; no mention of economic damage and all think that John Major was a great success over Maastricht, that that brings to employment. Well, that is enough or indeed in the 1997 election, if I remember rightly—not of that—it was a false prospectus. least as I lost my seat, along with over 100 others. I do I turn back to the referendum. It was consultative, not say thank you to Mr Cameron, whose idea it was not binding—but it is why we are here. Some 46.5 million to have a referendum in the first place and who saddled people were eligible to vote; 17.4 million voted to us with this extraordinary business of a fixed-term leave, as is frequently mentioned by the Brexit Minister Parliament. in this House; 16.1 million voted to remain; but 13 million I am by profession an economist—a practical did not vote at all. I have checked half a dozen opinion economist who spent 20 years in business working in polls which were taken shortly after the referendum. It the UK, India and Sri Lanka. Anybody who is a was quite clear that the bulk of those who did not vote businessman looks at the general situation that they regretted it but were remainers. face in the markets that they are in. I was interested to Now, in October 2019, three years and three months note today two headlines in the Telegraph about the after the referendum, there has been a distinct change world economy. The first is that Swedish economy is in the make-up of the electorate. According to the the canary in the coal mine, and it has just keeled over: Office for National Statistics, just over 600,000 Britons there has been a violent drop in manufacturing output die each year. Therefore, in the region of 2 million of right down to 2008 levels. Secondly, the risk of global those eligible to vote who were on the register are recession grows as factory woes go from bad to worse, unlikely to be able to vote today. The other side of that particularly in the US, the EU, France and Germany. coin is that 750,000 youngsters each year become So the background is not good. eligible to vote at 18 and therefore 2.5 million people I have mentioned the haulage industry in this country. between the ages of 18 and 21 who are alive today Add to that the pharmaceutical industry, which I were never consulted in 2016—quite a change. know well. Every company that I ever worked for in 1731 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1732

[LORD NASEBY] depends on a majority in the House of Commons. The that industry had reserves and action plans for reacting Prime Minister chooses the Cabinet, in which the to shortages, whatever the difficulties might be, and I Prime Minister is first among equals. All my political am totally confident that every company in that industry life I have argued that—as the noble Lord, Lord is ready and able, whatever the result may be. There Taverne, eloquently pointed out—after the end of the will be some potential difficulties. I drove back from impoverishment of the Second World War and the Devon and noticed all the overhead signs telling every conversion of Empire to Commonwealth, all Britain’s lorry driver and every other driver that, if they are not interests lay in a new destiny with our neighbours, yet aware that things may change on 1 November, they whom we had spent a thousand years fighting, in should take action. So well done the Government on creating peaceful parliamentary democratic institutions. that front. It is interesting and coincidental that today, the first I have just come back from Sri Lanka, where there Question centred on what might be seen as rather a is the port city of Colombo. It is open for business, small incident in the context of things: the sacking of similar to the Victoria Dam, and there is a conference Sonia Khan by an apparatchik in Downing Street. If in the City of London. I am also involved in Chile. I that had happened to me, I hope I would have resigned, declare an interest as chairman of the Cofradía del but it is symptomatic of something much more serious, Vino Chileno. That country, on its own basis, has now to which many of your Lordships have referred. First, contracted 26 individual deals with other blocs and three Privy Councillors were sent to advise Her Majesty countries covering 86% of global GDP. If Chile can on the proroguing of Parliament without the Cabinet do that on its own, I am totally confident that we can knowing what was happening. Secondly, Parliament do it on our own. was closed down illegally and therefore had to be Of course there will be challenges, but what on restored by the Supreme Court. I listened to Liz Truss earth is the Bank of England there for if not to react on a BBC programme this morning conceding that the to challenges? What is the Treasury there for if not to letter that went to the European Commission today provide some incentives and help in the interim? The had not been seen by the Cabinet in advance. So, how idea is being put about that MPs want to see the list of are the Government constituted? Who is it that is industries and companies that may be in difficulty. pulling the strings? Who is taking these decisions? That is entirely wrong. It would undermine that particular How is it that the Cabinet are prepared to rubber-stamp company, its employers, its employees, its pensioners the most controversial issues of our time, of which and its supplier relationships. That information must they were not briefed in advance? What do they think remain confidential. they are there for, as members of a Cabinet? As colleagues will know, I spent a few years as I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, Chairman of Ways and Means and as Deputy Speaker; who felt that watching the Prime Minister’s party I took through the Maastricht Bill. I had a little look conference speech this morning was a waste of time. at the proceedings of the Benn Bill, and by any yardstick Far from it. First, he is without any shadow of doubt they are unusual. Standing Order 24 is not something the best music hall turn in politics, and it was full of that you normally see being used for a Private Member’s great jokes. But it also revealed very clearly what the Bill. That does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, strategy is, and what it has been since day one of his but it is certainly quite extraordinary, particularly premiership: to combine an agenda of right-wing hard-line when a Private Member’s Bill has massive consequences politics with Brexit to try to get it through a general for the nation and our economy—and it never seemed election campaign by attracting back Nigel Farage’s to follow any of the normal parliamentary procedures. supporters. It is as blindingly obvious as that. You had Maybe that is right and maybe that is what should only to listen to the speech today, in which the ultimate happen, but I say this: a law has now been brought in target was Jeremy Corbyn. But Boris has got it wrong. over Prorogation, and if I were in government I would Jeremy Corbyn is probably the only person on the have a long, hard look in relation to the letter. I see Labour Benches who actually agrees with Boris about that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is Brexit. To focus on Corbyn is completely to miss the getting a bit worried that there is something amiss point. with that particular element of the Bill. I suggest that The real problem for the Conservative Government if I were sitting there, I would have a long, hard look at led by Boris Johnson is the Conservatives. It was it as well. Conservatives in the ERG who would not support the previous Prime Minister, which frustrated her ability to get a deal. It is the sacking of 22 of the more 7.05 pm renowned members of the Conservative Party by this Lord Heseltine: My Lords, three days after the Prime Minister that has removed the majority on referendum I wrote an article in the Mail on Sunday which he would otherwise exist. And where did the saying, “The fightback starts here”. I have no hesitation word “chicanery” come from? It came from Sir John at all in reiterating that position. I believed that, in the Major, a former Prime Minister, talking about what he light of circumstance and the evolution of truth, we thinks this Government are up to. There are two needed a referendum or a second election to deal with audiences for every party conference. Without doubt, the issue. Why was I so preoccupied to argue for a the hall erupted. I know what it is like; it is a wonderful further look? It is because I believe passionately that feeling. But there is a second audience, and that is power in this country rests here in Parliament, and it is the audience with which this Government should within our framework that we understand all too be concerned. I have indicated the parliamentary clearly how the system works. The Prime Minister consequences of what is happening, but there are 1733 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1734 millions of Conservatives who are now voting for the think that should be taken into account. I have to tell Liberal Democrats, because they will not swallow the him, too, that the continental customs authorities do line that is peddled about Brexit. not share his very optimistic view. In June I happened So, I go back to the Prime Minister’s speech: to be in the Netherlands, with two or three colleagues “Let’s get Brexit done, and let’s bring this country together”. who were equally interested in the subject. We were very kindly received by the head of the Netherlands This country is more divided, more fundamentally, in customs in Rotterdam; we saw the port there and met more directions, than I have ever seen it in my life. The many of her leading staff. They told us that they have idea that we are going to give up our position of taken on about 900 new employees, simply to deal influence across the Atlantic, across the Commonwealth with additional UK business after Brexit. The Dutch and within Europe and mould it all together in one by are serious people; they do not hire 900 people just to standing isolationist as an individual nation state is watch the traffic and do nothing. Noble Lords can unreal in the changing world of today. The idea that make the arithmetical calculations as easily as I can, President Trump is going to do a soft option for but you can imagine, if there are 900 people who Britain’s trade in a pre-election period in America intervene with a lorry every hour or two hours, for two is a delusion of the most naive sort. The idea that minutes, three minutes or five minutes, how much that 2.6 billion inhabitants of the Commonwealth are longing will induce delays in the process of clearing trucks to open their trade doors to us while the Home Secretary through Rotterdam that are destined for the United is clamping down on the immigration that they want Kingdom. There is clearly a material change happening to encourage into our country is another delusion. there, and the same thing is happening in other ports And the idea that the Conservative Government are and suppliers. Rotterdam is of course the major port risking the future of the United Kingdom itself, on a that supplies us. I do not think that complacency is in dogma that was driven by extreme populism, is to me order there, either. unbelievable. We need to go back to the people for an endorsement of the decision and, much better, its rejection. Lord Howarth of Newport: I am most grateful to the noble Lord and very much appreciate his kind personal words. If he would be good enough to look at Hansard 7.12 pm and see what I said, he will not find that I mentioned Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab): My Lords, I want either the Bank of England or the Treasury. What I do to begin by commenting on two of the speeches believe, though, is that our businesses in this country made earlier on by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and have a great deal of resilience, a great deal of power Lord Howarth. They were both very original speeches; and a great deal of creativity, and they will be able to those Members of the House always make original weather the transitional difficulties. I do not think that speeches.Both were the subject of considerable reflection. that is complacent, but a reflection of reality. Nevertheless, I detected in those speeches a considerable degree of complacency about the threats facing us. I Lord Davies of Stamford: I must apologise to the believe that complacency is such a danger in economics noble Lord for adding words that he did not pronounce. and in politics, in business and generally in life, that it I got the distinct impression that what he was talking needs to be commented on if it arises. I may say that about by way of remedial action was monetary or both noble Lords have been long-standing personal fiscal spending. Fiscal spending would have had the friends of mine for over half a century, and we have consequences that I have just outlined. I apologise to been arguing about politics and economics together him and hope that I have not unduly traduced the since we first met at a university in the Fens, 55 years message he was delivering to the House. I feel very ago. I hope that this is not the end of a beautiful strongly on this matter of complacency, faced with a friendship. possible recession. I know that the noble Lord will The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said that we may agree with me on this: recessions are very unpleasant go through some choppy water if we have a hard things. They destroy businesses, they destroy jobs, they Brexit, but that is all right; we will get through that destroy the jobs that people might have had and will okay, with the help of the Bank of England, fiscal never have. They destroy the economic sense of security spending and so forth. I have to tell him that fiscal of families. A lot of the human destruction and economic spending is not a cost-free policy. As you build up your destruction takes a very long time to repair. It is not debt—and public debt in this country has risen from something that we should walk into lightly. I am very less than 50% to nearly 100% of GDP in the last 20 years worried indeed and I hope that he understands why —you are gradually reducing your capacity to intervene that is—that we may be heading in that direction. in the future. We learned in the 1970s where that can eventually lead, and it is not something that one Lord Howarth of Newport: I very much agree with should do lightly. the noble Lord about the damage that recessions The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, managed to make out cause. Does he have any reflections on the fiscal policy that in fact there would be no increase in customs of the Government, which has now become quite checks as a result of our leaving the European Union. explosive and puts the country at very great risk, of That seemed to me inherently implausible; but he exactly the nature he has been describing? completely left out the subject of the longest delays in any border checks, which is the issue of certificates of Lord Davies of Stamford: I am so glad that I am origin, which is extremely complicated and a nightmare once again in thorough agreement with my noble and for those who are organising international logistics. I long-standing friend. Of course, I am very worried 1735 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1736

[LORD DAVIES OF STAMFORD] 7.21 pm about that; I mentioned it in our debate last week, so I will not go into that subject now, but I could not agree Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB): I think that is more on that subject. the cue for me to stand up. As an ex-Chief of Defence and a relative newcomer to the House, I do not make I must turn to the proposal that the Government my contribution with great enthusiasm. In fact, my made today to the European Commission. It seems to motivation is brought about primarily by friends in me to be a thoroughly dishonest and disreputable North Yorkshire with whom I spend my weekends. I document. It is exactly the sort of document that one feel a duty to reflect some of their anger, frustration would expect our Prime Minister to deliver and was and confusion about the state of the country and what probably not one where there was any expectation that this House does. I want to make some observations it would be accepted. I suppose that Mr Johnson about the state of the country and our political institutions, wanted to be in a position where he had made some both of which, to me and those I talk to, seem currently offer, so that he could then say that it was all the fault to lack integrity in the true sense of that word. of the European Union for not accepting it—albeit that he did not produce anything until a month before I start by offering four bits of context. The first is the deadline. The document does not address at all the that, since the end of the Cold War, liberal democracies matter that is of greatest concern to the Irish, which is have ceased having to fight for internal legitimacy. As the long-term avoidance in Ireland of an internal a result, populations have been neglected. Societies border or frontier. A border, in my definition—and in feel increasingly isolated from government. They feel the definition of most reasonable people—is an increasingly that their concerns are not understood administrative line on the map which, if you cross it, and not represented. Too much of politics seems to be has practical and probably financial consequences. about the pursuit of power and relatively narrow That does not mean that the border has to have an interest. infrastructure at any particular point. It means simply My second bit of context is that the population that if you cross this line, you will be deemed to be does not know what to believe. We live in an age in liable in one way or another. That is exactly what we which truth is a rare commodity. The vast majority of must avoid in Ireland, if we want to respect the Belfast news is either junk news, which I define as the agreement. It is what the Irish are determined to sensationalisation of the unsubstantiated, or fake news, avoid. That is the position at present: there is no which I define as misinformation or disinformation internal border on the island of Ireland. You can go designed to influence and deceive. I fear that much between any of the 26 counties and the six counties, political debate involves as much of the junk and the any time you want, with no consequences whatever of fake as it does the truth. an administrative or practical kind. That is what we need to preserve. That is not achieved by this proposal My third bit of context flows from the first two and and I imagine that for that reason alone it will and is probably not a new revelation. It is that the outcome should be rejected. of the 2016 Brexit referendum had little to do with the The contradictions have already been pointed out rational response of a well-informed public. The Brexit by my noble friend Lord Adonis. They are quite referendum was not a judgment on the benefits or serious because they have completely devalued the otherwise of our relationship with the EU; it was the document. On page 3, the document says: vehicle by which large parts of the country expressed anger at their isolation from and neglect by government. “This is entirely compatible with maintaining an open border in Northern Ireland”. For those who study global strategic megatrends, as I used to, the referendum outcome was no more or less In the next paragraph, it says that, than the British version of the Arab spring. President “all customs processes needed to ensure compliance with the UK Trump was the American version. and EU customs regimes should take place on a decentralised basis”. My fourth bit of context—one to which I have If there is an open border in Northern Ireland, why do borne witness even in this Chamber—is that intolerance you need customs processes and regimes? That is has become one of the dominant elements of the completely contradictory. I am taking a little more political climate. We seem to have become unable to time, but I had two interventions. listen to the views of those people we disagree with. The other notable contradiction in this document is What do I deduce from all this? My first deduction on page 2, where it says that the proposal, is that we are consumed by the wrong issue. Our “provides for the potential creation of an all-island regulatory relationship with the European Union is not existential zone on the island of Ireland”. to the United Kingdom in any meaningful sense. The Two paragraphs later, it says that under these right or more important issues are: first, how do we arrangements, sustain the integrity of the United Kingdom? Secondly, “Northern Ireland will be fully part of the UK customs territory”. how do we restore the integrity of our political system? These are blatant contradictions and devalue the whole These are the issues which should inform future action. document. Given the context I have described, my own view is that we should pursue Brexit, but it should be the least Baroness Berridge: My Lords, while there has been damaging Brexit that we can secure. We should then grace because of interventions, I remind the House be supportive of a government approach which is that the advisory speaking time is six minutes. fairer and more inclusive; which maximises the amount 1737 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1738 of activity delegated to local discretion and accountability; that are available around the world to terrorist groups and which rebuilds public trust in political leadership and hostile Governments, for extremely dangerous and activity at all levels. activities. And at this time, here is the United Kingdom, We should, in tandem, set out to restore the integrity paralysed pathetically and battling through this issue. and civility of government and political discourse. Against that background, we have proudly used the Perhaps, dare I say it, even in this Chamber we should phrase that the United Kingdom has “a contribution take far greater notice of how others view us rather to make”. We talk about being a force for good in the than simply being dazzled by the opinion we sometimes world, but this force is paralysed and is not making the hold of ourselves. If we can achieve all this, we will go contribution that is seriously needed. a long way towards regaining some national self-respect. I come to this situation. I had the honour to move a Motion on the Address for the Queen’s Speech. That 7.26 pm speech referred to the proposal for a referendum Bill. I said in that speech that I hoped we would remain, but Lord King of Bridgwater (Con): My Lords, it is a also that there would be a substantial vote in favour of pleasure to join in at this stage in the debate and leaving. I represented the United Kingdom for six recognise the contribution that the House of Lords is years in different Councils of Ministers, and I found making to showing that you can debate the issues of that the strength of the United Kingdom’s position Brexit without the sort of bad temper and extraordinarily was that we did have reservations about Europe and bad conduct that has existed in the other place and led that, if we did not bring some attention to the issues to a serious loss of public respect for Parliament. that we were raising, there was a risk that we might In the various exchanges that have taken place, I leave. We can talk about the budget rebate, about no particularly enjoyed the contribution of my noble thank you to the euro or no Schengen. But that card is friend Lord Heseltine, who is of course an authority now lost. I also see the developments happening in the on good jokes in conference speeches.I seem to remember European Union. I notice that it is seeking to appoint him on one occasion describing Labour’s economic a new commissioner for the eastward progression of policy as “all Balls”, in reference to the shadow Chancellor the European Union. of the time, which the Conservative conference much In making these very truncated remarks necessary enjoyed. I also very much agree with him that the to oblige all noble Lords today, I feel that we now have failure to consult the Cabinet on recent issues is extremely to accept that Europe is moving away. I used to poor and certainly should not be repeated. It is also a represent the United Kingdom when there were nine severe reflection on the present membership of that around the table. With 28 and rising, and an increased Cabinet. pressure for a united states of Europe, now is the time I also believe that it was a very serious mistake to to enter into a sensible agreement to remove from the seek to prorogue Parliament when we did. There was European Union, but to set down straight away work no need for it and I certainly was opposed to it at the to establish the friendliest relationships going forward time. But that is probably as far as I go in supporting with all those countries in Europe and the European my noble friend. His enthusiasm for all things European Union itself. was perhaps helped by the fact that he used to delegate to me the responsibility of going to all the Environment Council meetings in Europe, avoiding the problem of 7.32 pm getting involved himself in some of those discussions—but Baroness Altmann (Con): It is a pleasure to follow I will let that pass. the noble Lord, Lord King. We are here to take note The reason I am concerned about the paralysis we of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, which of course have had over Brexit is that we now live in an extremely has not happened. I agree with my noble friend Lord dangerous world. Look around at the situation in Tugendhat that the divisive rhetoric that blames the Syria, Yemen or Afghanistan. Look at Iran and its fact we have not left on a remainer Parliament is activities. Look at the growing strength of China, the entirely wrong. It is the Brexiters who have blocked risk of American isolationism and the push from Brexit. Sadly, extreme Brexiters have taken this China at this stage, just after its great 70th anniversary. Conservative Government further and further from Russia and China both have 2 million men under arms compromise. After two years of negotiations, the at this time, in a dangerous and unstable world. There withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU was is the difficulty and embarrassment of Hong Kong, rejected by Parliament, but not because of remainers coming at a time of semi-paralysis, when the people of or the Opposition. In the third vote in March 2019, Hong Kong are looking to see what the United Kingdom Hansard reports that 286 Members supported the might or might not be prepared to do and getting a withdrawal agreement, including the backstop, while pretty big lack of clear signals. 344 voted against—a 58-vote defeat for the Government. There are other challenges that are quite new to the But 28 Conservatives and 10 Democratic Unionist world. Undoubtedly, there are dire warnings about Party Members voted against their Government. If climate change. There are the far too inadequately these 38 had supported the deal, there would have considered problems of population growth, which will been an 18-vote majority and we would presumably lead to continuing mass migration, particularly out of not be facing no deal now. Africa, and the changes that that will produce. There Since then, the current Prime Minister has apparently are the new developments of cyber and social media. changed his mind and, despite voting for it in March, There was the issue of drones even before we had the has decided that no deal is preferable to accepting the attack in Saudi Arabia, and the new, cheap weapons backstop. I have witnessed good colleagues resign the 1739 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1740

[BARONESS ALTMANN] I totally support these sentiments, but what has happened Whip or leave the Tory party altogether, and 21 brave to the man who penned them? Today’s supposed plans MPs expelled for voting in the national interest against for the Irish border are, as many noble Lords have the no-deal Brexit that many agree would be catastrophic pointed out, not necessarily going to produce a deal. for our country and party. Like my noble friend Lord They do not seem to be designed to. Therefore, we are Cormack, I consider these MPs to be people of high still heading either for an extension or no deal— integrity and true Conservatives, who should be part 40 years of integration discarded. of a party that is traditionally a broad church, not a Burke warned against sudden extreme change, so I narrow sect that panders to a group of extremists who finish with his wise words, which have helped me keep wish to override the will of Parliament and dismiss going in the face of so much madness: court rulings. “Never despair, but if you do, work on in despair”. Thus far, I am grateful that Parliament and the courts are protecting normal democratic values against 7.38 pm the extremes, but I fear politics is being put above democracy and economic logic. We must respect the Lord Dubs (Lab): My Lords, I followed many of the result of the referendum, but we have done. Pandering speeches in this debate with interest, and I am delighted to the Brexit Party or ERG extremists, and going back to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and to on one’sprevious words, are not the normal Conservative say a few words. Whichever side of the divide you are values as I understood them. The Prime Minister, in on, the country is going through enormous pain. The his victory speech after the referendum, on 24 June 2016, country is suffering. Public discourse has become nasty. declared: We are putting ourselves through a lot of torment. If “The most precious thing this country has given the world is we are to do that, there has to be good reason for it. I the idea of parliamentary democracy”. was not present for all the debate but, although many This is not just an idea; it is a reality. Our parliamentary points have been made, I have heard little about why democracy does not consist of pitting the public against we are going through this pain and what the benefit is. Westminster and the courts. Parliament has rejected The only argument seems to be that there was a no deal time and again, and many on these Benches referendum; therefore, we must go along with it. What are incredulous at current events. Dismissing an 11:0 is the benefit to this country? How will we be better off Supreme Court ruling as “wrong” scarcely squares as a result of the pain we are inflicting on ourselves? with the Prime Minister’s pre-referendum promise to During the war there was pain. We knew why; we make British courts supreme. willingly took the pain because we wanted this country to survive and we wanted to put down the nasty Leaving with no deal has no democratic legitimacy. dictators—the Nazis—who were threatening the peace Michael Gove, in April 2016, assured referendum of Europe and this country. That pain was worth voters that the UK would continue to be part of the while, but today the pain seems to be for no particularly EU’s free trade zone. He stated: good purpose. “The suggestion that Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and Ukraine Many of us who support remain will be the first to would remain part of this free-trade area—and Britain would be on the outside with just Belarus—is as credible as Jean-Claude say that of course the EU is not perfect. We could go Juncker joining UKIP”. through a list of faults, but on balance it is better for No deal means losing our free trade with the EU. As us to be in than out. I do not hear many people who my noble friend the Minister said in his opening advocate leave saying that there is anything good remarks that business should be ready for no deal, I about the EU. They regard it as absolutely the sum of ask him when the temporary tariff regime will be all evil that is possible. published. How will smaller businesses be supported, When we passed the European Union (Withdrawal) given that we are just four weeks from 31 October? Act, I moved an amendment, which was passed, to say Could he tell me if there is any democratic evidence that family reunion for refugees should remain under that the British people insist that 31 October must be a the terms of the Dublin treaty even after we have left hard Brexit deadline? the EU. At that point we all assumed that we would leave on the basis of a deal and we would therefore No deal is not the will of the people. For example, protect that family reunion provision. I ask the Minister: in the general election in 2017, more than 17 million if we leave without a deal, will the Government still people voted for parties opposed to no deal. In the consider incorporating whatever agreement we have 2019 EU elections, 54% of voters rejected no-deal with the EU in the future on a no-deal basis and parties. How does this square with the Prime Minister’s that family reunion for child refugees will still be conference speech today that we must, possible? “dedicate ourselves again to that simple proposition that we are here to serve the democratic will of the British people”? Yesterday evening I attended a function organised by the Multiple Sclerosis Society. There was a lot of In his article after the 2016 referendum, the Prime discussion about the implications of Brexit. There Minister stated that 16 million wanted to remain, so: were some academics doing research into MS and “We who are part of this narrow majority … must reach out, other neurological conditions who were very concerned. we must heal, we must build bridges”— I will quote some of the figures I was given. UCL at that stage, I do not think he meant from Britain to benefits to the extent of £150 million to £200 million-worth Ireland— of EU grants. Many other leading universities get the “because it is clear that some have feelings of dismay, and of loss, same benefit. Some 30% of the academic staff are and confusion”. from the EU and between 20% and 30% of students 1741 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1742 are from the EU. When they finish their studies they 7.45 pm often stay here and make an important contribution to our academic life. All these things are in danger. Lord James of Blackheath (Con): My Lords, I have The Minister shakes his head. I was talking to academics a very tenuous connection to justify taking your time yesterday evening and this is what they said to me. If at this late hour of a long debate. On 6 September I events prove me wrong, they prove me wrong. participated in a debate in which I tried to run a small amendment to encourage a greater concentration on I turn to Northern Ireland. I was privileged to be a the issues of sovereignty in whatever we came to as a junior Minister there at the time of the Good Friday Brexit solution. I very quickly withdrew it, but somebody agreement and beyond. I do not think that there is got hold of the video clip of it and put it out on the anything in the Government’s proposals that will save internet—not me, I hasten to add. Within three days I the situation. I believed all along that even if one was a had had more than 3 million hits, nearly all favourable. leaver, which I was not, there was one argument for voting remain, which is Northern Ireland, because I did not know what to do with these, so I suggested the problem is insoluble in any terms that will protect on the places where this was occurring that we should the peace and well-being of Northern Ireland and the put up a copy of a report I had written called the Republic. We are jeopardising something fragile and Black Vulture—the Black Vulture being the most obvious long argued for, which was achieved as a great success alternative I could think of to the Yellowhammer. and resulted in thousands of lives being saved between Yellowhammer deals with the problems that come then and now. Yet we are endangering it. It was John from a no-deal Brexit; Black Vulture is to deal with Hume, a great Northern Ireland politician and statesman, the problems that might come from not doing a no-deal who said that the European Union was the most Brexit and what would come if we got put into a successful peace process in world history. He was remain situation instead. I set out 19 questions to right. which I did not give answers and asked people to consider them for themselves. I expected to get very I went with a Select Committee to Dover about a little response, but I got a flood of mail through the year ago looking at the traffic from Calais. We were letterbox as well, usually very deeply considered. told in Dover that to clear a container from within the EU takes between two and four minutes. To clear a Whereas I would have had a bet that the first container from outside the EU takes on average one question they would have dealt with was, “What’s and a quarter hours. When I have put it to leavers and going to happen with defence? Tell us what the EDU said, “What are you going to do about that?”, I am is”, it was not. It was my fourth question, which asked, told, “We can solve it”. That is always the answer: “We “What is your situation with regard to the possible can solve it, we can solve Northern Ireland”. When I imposition of the euro as an alternative to the pound ask how, we are never given any of the arguments. if we remain and how do you think it will affect us?” Dover will come to a halt, which is why the motorways The result on this one was almost unanimous: if this in Kent are all ready for a stacking operation and why happens it will be a disgrace because they will use there are portaloos being put all over the motorway so qualified majority voting to impose it on us and we that when the lorry drivers are stuck there all night will have no choice. This will mean that all our taxes in they can use them. Yet we are jeopardising all that. It this country will be sucked in by Europe. We will not will take us years to disentangle ourselves from the EU have anything left for our own defence forces, our even if we proceed down this particular path. schools, our education or our welfare. All this will be taken by Europe to fund bust European countries. We I believe in a new, further referendum because I will not have it. That was certainly the number one trust the people of Britain to have their say. I do not point I was getting back. think what was decided three years ago was based upon the facts made available. I believe that a lot of The next point was, yes indeed, what do we do people in this country voted as they did because they about the EDU? Are we really giving them our Army, felt left out by the political system and by political our Navy and our Air Force? They have not had that parties, and they had not been given the chance to one for me, but they have got it from a lot of very have their say. They voted to a large extent for that careless stuff coming out of the EU itself, in which it is reason; the other reason was immigration. I believe a pretty well saying that it is going to get so much new referendum is perfectly justified and a perfectly co-operation from us post remain that they will effectively democratic thing to do. I regret that the people most have control of our Armed Forces and our own security affected by the decision to leave are the young people—the and intelligence services as well. If you ask around 16 year-olds—the EU people living here, and British and say, “What’s the answer to this?”, the official people living in the EU. All three of those groups did answer from within government is, “It’s rubbish, of not have any chance at all to have their say. course it couldn’t happen. We shall still be in NATO and we have the protection of NATO”. But people out I do not think that take it or leave it is a negotiating there have seen that one coming and they have an position. It is a shabby way of proceeding. People say answer for it. “No”, they say, “if we go into it with that Parliament is divided. The country is divided and NATO then Europe will say, ‘Goody, we’ve got NATO it is not surprising that Parliament and the Commons now’, but America will look across and say, ‘If you’re are divided. The only way to deal with this is to have a going in with the EU defence and taking your NATO referendum and say to the people, “Tell us again what connection with you, we’re out of NATO, and, by the you think”. I believe that they will have changed their way, we’re out of Five Eyes as well. You can’t do that minds between 2016 and now. on the side’”. 1743 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1744

[LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH] compliance governed by laws into which they have no All of this would coincide with a lot of the stuff say, because, of course, Northern Ireland would be in coming out from Madam von der Leyen and her the single market and subject to its rules. Then we are successor in European defence. They ran a conference supposed to go into a form of purgatory because this in Munich in the spring of this year at which they said, proposal would be that before the end of the transition “Look, all of this started with the Maastricht treaty. period, and “every four years afterwards”, the UK We said we were going to do this and we said we’d have will provide an opportunity for a democratic consent it done by 2019-20. We’re nearly there. Now we’re to these arrangements. going to be able to do this once we’ve got past discussion This would mean that all our subsequent political with the UK and we shall go into 2019-20 with everything discourse at every election would be a row over this. that we’ve ever wanted”. They are standing on a While of course I, like every other Member of this platform saying this and Mrs von der Leyen or her House, will have to take time to read the document successor is saying, “And it’d be lovely to have two carefully, at first sight it looks worse to me than the such beautiful aircraft carriers”. Oh yes, that will go last one, which was the EU withdrawal agreement down well with the British public. Then, who is standing negotiated by Mrs May. I am not surprised that the beside her but a former Prime Minister of this country? DUP Peers have scuttled out of the Chamber, because He is not showing dissent, but he is not showing assent they set out their views here in one statement after either, but what a presence to put on the platform at another. Mr Dodds, their deputy leader, said that that time. This has a profound effect. The public out there would be no internal UK border in the Irish Sea. there want to know. Now, we do not have one border; we have two borders. I have a big suggestion to make to the Government, Then another colleague goes on to say that, whether they stay, go or whatever they are going to do. They should issue a definitive statement on these two “there can be no arrangements agreed that compromise the integrity of the UK single market and place barriers, real or contentious issues and say categorically whether, as perceived, to the free movement of goods, services and capital the pubic clearly suspect, they have done a private deal between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”. with the European Commission to relinquish control But there will be. They then say: of our Armed Forces and our intelligence services. If they have not, they should say categorically that they “We will not accept any form of regulatory divergence which have not: there is no binding issue which could be separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the triggered post Brexit or if staying on a remain basis or rest of the United Kingdom”. anything; it is simply not an issue. Otherwise, it is They also said: going to be a running sore which will disrupt and “But not in relation to following the rules of the single market destroy anything that the Government were going to or the customs union for Northern Ireland as a generality”. do on the subject. But not only will agricultural goods be covered; all I return to my original point about the need to products will be covered. restore our sovereignty. It is the one great unanimous issue. There is no longer a population out there saying, Then, of course, the travel correspondent of the “We want to take back control”. They are saying, “We DUP, Ian Paisley, says, want our sovereignty back”. They are saying it in “Northern Ireland has not been designated some purgatorial every nook and cranny in our national debate. We relationship of neither being in or outside the EU but will be should not be in doubt: we cannot do anything—either treated completely the same as every other component part of Brexit or remain—without cracking those problems. I the UK”. thank noble Lords for their time and wish them well in No. I just do not know at this stage how the DUP can the rest of the debate. even look in the mirror in the morning. The red lines that it drew up were that there would be no interruption in the integrity of the United Kingdom. That red line 7.51 pm has been broken by these proposals without any doubt Lord Empey (UUP): My Lords, yesterday in this whatever. Chamber, as reported in Hansard, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Diane Dodds MEP said, of Springbank, said: “There will be no internal trade borders within the UK”. “It is not the intention of this Government to have Northern Yes, there will. Ireland treated any differently from any other part of this, our United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, 1/10/19; col. 1622.] I had hoped tonight to put forward proposals that I Will the Minister stand over that statement when he believed would provide an alternative to the backstop. winds up this evening? I do not know how he can, We could make it an offence for UK territory to be because the document that has just been circulated to used for the transport of goods to the European us before this debate creates the very thing that most market that are not compliant. We could indemnify of us feared most: the border up the Irish Sea. If the European Union were it to be the case that it was anybody doubts that that is what this is, the Government found that any goods slipped through and entered the says in paragraph 4 of this paper: EU. I also believe that on to the Good Friday agreement “The proposal set out in this note would see regulatory checks a cross-border body should be created, an additional applying between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. one by treaty, involving the European Union, the There are border inspection posts or designated Republic and the United Kingdom where that body posts of entry as required by EU law. They talk about would have a role in monitoring and policing the the boundary of the zone, the zone of regulatory appropriate arrangements on the island. 1745 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1746

We also find that these proposals mean that Her Lord Robathan: As I was saying, it is a very important Majesty’s Government will allow the EU Court of measure but, as the noble Baroness knows, the Second Justice to administer EU law in Northern Ireland. Reading is unlikely to proceed to law because we are That was another red line. Therefore, this requires very likely to have a general election. I am not saying that it careful consideration and I am horrified—shocked—that is not important, but there are not many people down anybody describing themselves as unionist would be in the House of Commons saying that it is important. not simply accepting but advocating a border up the The Commons is paralysed. It is a zombie Parliament—a Irish Sea. They are advocating, because they have dead Parliament, as the Attorney-General has said. signed up to this and they are promoting that, so they We need a general election. are advocating a border up the Irish Sea. I do not I am going to look at the judgments that brought us know how any unionist can possibly stand in front of back here. I am not going to talk much about the the electorate and say that. It is an outrage, and people Supreme Court judgment, although a little, but more need to think very carefully where we are going with about the judgment of 11 September. The Supreme all of this. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, Court talked of precedents, but there is none that I said: the decision has been made and we should implement can see, unless we refer to the dictatorial monarchs of it, but there are ways and means and I really fear that the 17th century: the Supreme Court judgment indeed this is not the way or the means. refers to 1611. On 11 September, the Lord Chief Justice, the noble 7.57 pm and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, together with the Lord Robathan (Con): My Lords, so after three and Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s a quarter years, here we are again discussing Brexit. Bench Division said: Actually,there are one or two new things to be discussed, “It is not a matter for the courts”. such as this proposal that we have just heard and that I am going to quote extensively from that judgment the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has been talking about, and from Lord Bingham, who was highly regarded but basically, there is nothing much that is new. The and described as the outstanding lawyer of his generation. old arguments have been trotted out, so I will not The judgment of 11 September said: disappoint the House and will repeat one or two. “The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well Those who voted for a referendum, which I did not, established”. who voted to implement Article 50, who stood on It quoted Lord Bingham saying: manifestos in 2017 promising to implement the results— “no deal is better than a bad deal”, “The more purely political (in a broad or narrow sense) a question is, the more appropriate it will be for political resolution it said in the Conservative Party manifesto—who promised and the less likely it is to be an appropriate matter for judicial to accept the result at the very beginning shame themselves decision”. by their obstructionism. I particularly single out the In another quote from another case, Lord Bingham Liberal Democrats, although it is sad that there are said that, only three here to listen. “matters of potentially great importance are left to the judgment … of political leaders (whether and when to seek a dissolution, Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab): There are only for instance) …Where constitutional arrangements retain scope four on your Benches. for the exercise of political judgement they permit a flexible response to differing and unpredictable events in a way which the application of strict rules would preclude”. Lord Robathan: There are only three Liberal Democrats The judgment went on: here to listen to me. These people have avoided listening “Almost all important decisions made by the Executive have a to me, but they went on for years about how they were political hue to them”. campaigning for “a real referendum” on Europe, under In another case—this was only four years ago—the Nick Clegg. Paddy Ashdown boasted that he called noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger,Lord Sumption for a referendum on Europe in 1989 or 1990. Let me and Lord Hodge said: quote the late Paddy Ashdown: “I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice “The issue was non-justiciable because it was political”. of the British people … whether it’s by one percent or 20 percent”. The judgment went on: That was on the day of the referendum. Now, the “The Prime Minister’s decision that Parliament should be Liberal Democrats have decided, “We will ignore the prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice British people, ignore what they said, because we given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political”. know better”, notwithstanding 10 years of campaigning Surely, we all agree with that. It says in paragraph 64: for a referendum. “The constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom Why have we been called back? While we are here have evolved to achieve a balance between the three branches of for a total of seven or eight days, we at least are the state; and the relationship between the Executive and Parliament discussing Brexit. Down the other end, an empty is governed in part by statute and in part by convention. Standing House of Commons has been discussing the Domestic Orders of both Houses elaborate the procedural relationship between the Executive and Parliament. This is territory into Abuse Bill—a very important measure. which the courts should be slow indeed to intrude by recognising an expanded concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty”, Baroness Smith of Basildon: The noble Lord says that and it concludes that, it is an important measure, but he seems to be critical “the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty of what the House of Commons was discussing. I think the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable in Her he ought to be very careful where he goes with this. Majesty’s courts”. 1747 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1748

[LORD ROBATHAN] Swan, a picture of worst-case scenarios. Yellowhammer I do not think anybody would disagree that politics has been published in all its worrying detail. Will the and Parliament are not just paralysed; I fear that we Minister publish the other reports, or are they just too are now despised because of our failure to respect the worrisome to contemplate? referendum result. The Supreme Court, I regret to say, There is yet more to worry about, such as Operation has trespassed into politics and that is a very dangerous Brock and the disruption to ferry and road traffic that route down which to go. We have on the one hand can be caused by delay or non-compliance. Yesterday, three distinguished judges—the Lord Chief Justice we heard about the dangers to health in losing access et cetera—backed up by Bingham, Sumption and to food safety alerts. We know about the threats of others, who thought that it was dangerous. In what violence to our politicians, particularly women. We is a febrile, heated and angry atmosphere, many are know that civil servants too are being targeted, with wondering why—because nobody can understand it one party leader accusing them of not doing a neutral —11 distinguished lawyers in the Supreme Court can job. What is the name of the bird that will help to completely contradict these other three distinguished protect our politicians and our civil servants from lawyers beforehand. Some are wondering whether the these pressures, so that they can properly carry out Supreme Court has become part of an establishment their tasks? remainer plot. As it happens, I do not think so and We in Parliament also have a considerable task. On believe absolutely in the rule of law but— 5 September in the Commons at col. 394, the leader of Noble Lords: Oh! the other place said that there were 580 statutory instruments which have to be approved by Parliament Lord Robathan: I hear the Liberal Democrats laughing. so that no agreement would “happen smoothly”. He I hope that they are going to pursue their policy even indicated that some 200 were in progress. Can the further, because that will lead them to the same result Minister tell us how many instruments still have to be they had in 2015. scrutinised or debated, and will he ensure that none of The increasing interference of courts is taking us to them will be debated or scrutinised after they come a continental system. Nobody asked for it; nobody has into force? voted for it. It has been exacerbated by the ECHR Wewere promised a whole range of new opportunities. being incorporated into law and by the creation of the Perhaps the Minister can tell us what these opportunities Supreme Court. I agree with the Lord Chief Justice will be when we leave the EU, with or without an and not with the Supreme Court. To this House of agreement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could unelected, unaccountable, privileged Peers, I say again not tell the Conservative Party conference. All he that our whole political system is discredited. We need could do was to ask people to identify EU regulations to leave on 31 October to get the poison out of our that we can improve or remove—a kind of Red Tape political discourse. Challenge. Is this really the best that the Government can do? If it is, fairly soon even the Brexiteers and the 8.04 pm Government’s own supporters will turn on them. Lord Haskel (Lab): My Lords, I would like to get Now that all these difficulties, problems and costs back to basics because next week I have a birthday: a are apparent, I ask the Minister: do we really want to birthday that places me firmly in the generation that inflict them on ourselves? Do we really want to have looked to the idea of a European Union as a means of years of uncertainty in grappling with the consequences, maintaining peace in Europe, the rule of law, free known and unknown? Surely, now is the time that liberal democracy, mutual respect and collaboration people deserve a chance to think again, as any sensible through economic renewal and progress. Yes, we were person would do. Indeed, when I compare this scenario idealists then. However, this view has gradually became with the one that I described all those years ago, it dated and replaced by people saying, “Let’s go it alone does not seem dated to me now. The opportunity to and control our own borders—have freedom to make think again would be an excellent birthday present up our own rules and regulations, and to trade with next week. anybody we wish”. We now know that this has divided the country. It has divided us into those who are 8.10 pm determined to leave, whatever the cost, and those who are alarmed and concerned about the cost and disruption Baroness Meyer (Con): My Lords, the Prime Minister and seek to minimise it. I belong to the latter group. is right: we need to get Brexit done. The longer the Why? It is because of the size, the cost, the enormity of delay, the more divided we will become—if that is even the disruption and the time it will take to adapt. All possible. Last week, bloodletting in the other place these things cause me great alarm. plumbed new depths of acrimony and abuse. It was In spite of all the assurances of a smooth exit, I shocking, but hardly surprising. After three years of think the Government have become alarmed too. They deadlock, remainers and Brexiteers have become more are desperately trying to prepare for the disruption and more entrenched in their positions, allowing anger through a whole ornithology of studies. We all know and resentment to replace reasoned debate. about Yellowhammer and the emergency plans to deal Meanwhile,the frustration of our voters at Parliament’s with the disruption of supplies but there is also Snow inability to honour its commitment to the referendum Bunting, which deals with the preparations the police result grows by the day. We have reached such a point have to make in the event of social disruption. Then that many outside the Westminster bubble no longer there is Kingfisher, a scheme to save companies from care whether we leave with a deal, without a deal, or collapse, presumably with financial support; and Black with just half a deal. Surely the European elections 1749 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1750 were warning enough. Yet we appear to have learnt of a “people’s vote”. But can we do this again? Does absolutely nothing from the dramatic success of the anybody in their right mind want to go through that Brexit Party. Our heads are deep in the sand. This is again? I need to finish, because my time is up. how revolutions—like the one that destroyed my Russian There are other people trying to revoke Article 50. I family—begin. It beggars belief that, three years and never thought I would say it, but we must be grateful three months after the referendum, Brexit remains to the Liberal Democrats. Their leader has given the undelivered. At the time of the last extension, President game away by saying that if we were to vote leave in a Tusk urged us to use the time well. Can we honestly second referendum, she would refuse to implement it. say that we have done so? At least she has had the decency to come clean and persuade her party to support revoke. We need to Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): No. move on; we need to try to come together and support the Prime Minister, who is trying to get a deal. Baroness Meyer: Exactly. Brexit delayed is Brexit denied. Yet, with the latest deadline looming, Members 8.17 pm of this House and the other place are scheming, yet Lord Wigley (PC): My Lords, for once we have a again, to frustrate the wish of the majority of the debate that is timely, following as it does so quickly in British people and to undermine the Prime Minister’s the wake of the Prime Minister’s conference speech determination to deliver Brexit—and, may I say, with and indeed the publication of the documents delivered a deal; that is what he trying to do. This plotting is as this afternoon to Brussels. Having said that, one really calculating as it is unworthy. It is, to quote Sir John must ask whether the “take it or leave it” approach is a Major, “political chicanery”. This is not a struggle basis on which to secure the mutual trust that is between two types of democracy: parliamentary and essential if we are to achieve a harmonious relationship plebiscite; it is a blending of the two. It was Parliament with our European neighbours. itself that agreed the referendum, undertook to implement I have quickly read the documents published today it and, by a thumping majority,voted to trigger Article 50. and, however they are dressed up, these proposals will Because it makes Brexit more difficult and revoke place Northern Ireland in a different relationship with more likely, the Benn Act is, in reality, a distortion of Europe to that of Britain, as the noble Lord, Lord parliamentary democracy, not its triumphant assertion. Empey, noted a moment ago. The reality is, if the UK As for negotiation, to rob the Prime Minister of the is outside a European customs union area and the option to walk away from the negotiating table is Irish Republic is inside that customs union, there will self-defeating madness. It is like playing the Wimbledon inevitably be a border between the north and south of finals with a hole in your racquet. We have to ask the Ireland. There are only two ways of avoiding this: question: what is behind this Westminster scheming to first, if both the UK and the Irish Republic remain in get another extension of Article 50? a customs union—and that could of course still be possible even if the UK ceases being a member of the Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): Would the European Union—or, alternatively, by the reunification noble Baroness agree that it is in fact like trying to play of Ireland. This is an option that, in our many Brexit the finals while threatening to walk off if you do not debates, we have skirted around. Now, following the win the first round? Johnson ultimatum, it cannot be avoided. It would be subject of course to the endorsement of the majority of electors in both the north and the south. The world Baroness Meyer: I could not agree with that because, of politics is full of unintended consequences, and if the Prime Minister is to be able to negotiate, he one such example is that Brexit may lead to a united needs to know that his Parliament and this country Ireland. are behind him. It is the only way to negotiate—if you Those Members of this House or another place play poker and you show your trump card in advance, who still advocate or concur with a no-deal Brexit how can you negotiate? must face this reality: their course of action may well What is behind this Westminster scheming to get lead to the end of the United Kingdom in its present another extension of Article 50? We are told that it is form. Such constitutional change could well accelerate to avoid a no-deal Brexit, however that may be defined. Scotland’s departure from the union, which would In reality, no deal covers several outcomes, none of then confront Wales with a fundamental decision on which can be described as “crashing out”. The plain our future as well. Noble Lords might imagine that truth is that we cannot predict with any certainty the such a scenario would have its attractions for me, as economic outcome of Brexit—whichever form it takes— an advocate of maximum Welsh autonomy. But let for this country or for the European Union, because me make it quite clear: it does not. The maximum this has never been done before. There have been independence for our respective nations must be within scores, maybe hundreds, of predictions and analyses. a framework of the free movement of people, goods For some, no deal is the deepest pit of hell, for others and money. Such a framework is provided by the the promised land. Not for nothing did Thomas Carlyle European Union, providing free movement for its call economics the “dismal science”. I experienced 28 member states. That is one reason, though not the that personally when I worked in financial services. only reason, why I so strongly support the UK remaining Today, our crystal balls are cloudier than ever. in the European Union. Some will say that the delay should be used for a The Prime Minister could have announced today second referendum—I am beyond my time, I speak that he was willing to compromise and interpret Brexit too slowly. This is often wrapped in the pious hypocrisy as being delivered within a framework that would 1751 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1752

[LORD WIGLEY] Prime Minister’s use of his prerogative powers in permit the ongoing free movement of people, goods advising Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament and money between the UK outside the EU and was justiciable, contrary to the opinion of the Lord Ireland within the EU. That would implicitly mean Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. Their free movement with the whole of the EU. Had that justification seems to be based on their opinion that been so, I too would have been willing to compromise—as, the effect of prorogation upon the fundamentals of indeed, Plaid Cymru did when we accepted the joint our democracy was extreme. However, prorogation White Paper published by the Welsh Government in reduced the number of sitting days by only three days 2017 on that matter and along those lines.But Mr Johnson from what was anyway scheduled. Furthermore, both will not compromise, so those of us who wish to retain your Lordships’ House and another place had clearly such links with our continent cannot retain confidence passed the decision on Brexit to the people to decide in this Government. That lack of confidence is reinforced by referendum, promising to carry out their decision. I by the determination of Mr Johnson to leave the EU believe that those responsible for the passage of the without a deal if no agreement is achieved by 31 October. surrender Act, and indeed the Cooper-Boles Act, have Crashing out in this way would be economically had a much more extreme effect on our democracy. devastating for Wales, as many noble Lords have argued many times. I shall not repeat those arguments, I agree with the Government that it would be much although I note today with interest that Northern better to leave the European Union with an agreed Ireland is being offered a new deal while Wales is not. deal, providing a transition period to the end of next year. However, those who have tried and continue to The Prime Minister once again today indicated that try to take no deal off the table have done the country he will not ask for the 31 October cliff edge to be a gross disservice by seriously weakening our negotiating delayed in order to secure a deal. In taking such a position. I wholly agree with the Prime Minister that it stance, he is specifically refusing to respect the legislative is time to get Brexit done and move on. We have revisions endorsed by this Chamber. If in two weeks’ already postponed our departure from the EU twice, time there is no agreement with the EU and no at considerable cost to businesses and unnecessarily undertaking to extend the Article 50 date, then MPs prolonging uncertainty. The surrender Act significantly must surely vote no confidence in Mr Johnson and his reduces the incentive for the EU negotiators to show Government. I hope they do so and follow that with a flexibility in revising the withdrawal agreement to one resolution of the House indicating their support for that might find support in another place. I commend another senior MP, be that Kenneth Clarke, Margaret the work of the Alternative Arrangements Commission, Beckett or whoever, to head a cross-party Government whose report published in July has, I believe, assisted to sort out this whole sorry saga. The Speaker could the Government in putting forward the very reasonable convey the name of that person to Her Majesty the proposals put to Mr Juncker today. Queen, even if the Prime Minister were unwilling to do so. That new Government should then move rapidly I was in Japan earlier this month and was able to to reach a compromise deal with the European Union discuss the current situation with several senior politicians, which involves rethinking our customs union relationship civil servants and businesspeople. They are, of course, with our continent. concerned about the potential disruption to trade I realise that such a version of Brexit will not be between the UK and Europe. However, the Japanese acceptable to all Brexiteers; but neither is a no-deal Government very much want the UK to use its regained Brexit acceptable to all leave voters, let alone all remainers. freedom in trade policy to accede to the Trans-Pacific That is why there must be a confirmatory referendum Partnership, or TPP. They want us as a member not in which the Brexit proposed by the cross-party only because we are the one country most likely to Government is tested against the status quo. Such a spur the United States to reconsider its decision to binding referendum could then be held early in the withdraw; they want us there in our own right as a G7 new year, allowing Brexit to be finally resolved by economy committed to furthering a global trading March. That would enable an election to follow in system based on competition and free markets, where May with the Brexit issue resolved and every party nation states are free to adopt regulatory regimes that able to address the pressing social, environmental and suit their own needs and priorities based on mutual economic problems facing these islands. I appeal to recognition and equivalence of outcomes, rather than MPs of all parties to reject the Boris bluster and state-led harmonised regulation, with excessive reliance replace him with a Prime Minister who will respect the on the precautionary principle, as increasingly adopted legislation on the Brexit timetable and allow us to find by the EU. a consensus way forward. Six of the 11 members of the TPP are Commonwealth countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand 8.23 pm and Singapore, and the Governments of those countries have all also shown support for UK accession. The Viscount Trenchard (Con): My Lords, it is always a negotiations with Japan on an FTA and on the TPP pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley,although could be a single-pocket negotiation. While shackled I regret that what I have to say will not be to his liking. to the EU’s customs union and single market, we I thank my noble friend Lord Callanan for introducing would not be able to join the TPP or enter into any this debate. I am not a lawyer, but I am surprised that other FTAs. I welcome the new Government’s policy the learned justices of the Supreme Court ruled as of seeking a trading relationship with the EU which is they did last week. It seems to me that they have as frictionless as possible, given our absolute requirement changed the constitution by their decision that the to be free to develop our independent trade policy. 1753 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1754

I give the example of a major Japanese pharmaceutical I have argued all my life that in many ways an company whose CEO I have known well for nearly unwritten constitution is stronger than the written 40 years. When Brexit came along, he was initially constitution, because it represents what is acceptable upset and disappointed; it has cost his company some to the broadest possible cross-section of political players $8 million to strengthen his EU-based companies and in society, but also to society as a whole. I have begun obtain the necessary licences from the European Medicines to question my position on this, because it depends on Agency,requiring some duplication with the group’sUK the players respecting the consensus as it has emerged. companies. Now he is confident, deal or no deal, that At the moment, we are being encouraged to sweep he can research, develop, manufacture and distribute that consensus to one side in favour of the narrow medicines in the UK and in the EU 27. Now he wants objectives of the present Administration. the upside of Brexit. His expectation is that the UK I have therefore come to the conclusion that indeed will move to a more innovation-friendly regulatory we must have a second referendum, because we must system, which means divergence from EMA rules. He be able to say to the people, “Is this what you want?” is confident that if the UK will do this, it can remain on anything we may have been able to negotiate, or, the best place in the world for a life sciences company “Would you prefer to remain part of the European such as his to research and develop new therapies and Union?”. I have many misgivings about going down medicines. However, noble Lords opposite and, indeed, that road, but if you have misgivings, you must decide some of my noble friends are determined to ensure in the end what is necessary, and I have decided in the that if Brexit takes place at all, it should be only a very end what is necessary. soft one whereby we remain under the EU’s trade My misgivings are that I think that referenda have policy control and have no say in new laws that it been amply demonstrated to have absolutely no place brings in as it moves to further harmonise and expand whatever in a parliamentary representative democracy. its competences at the expense of its member states. In a parliamentary representative democracy, we the Your Lordships’ House has even passed an amendment representatives of the people—particularly in the other to the Trade Bill to require continued adherence to House, of course—are here to do what we believe to EMA rules and oversight after Brexit. be right and appropriate and then give account to There is no point at all in being half in and half out people in a general election. If we say, “Oh, on this of the EU. I strongly believe that the way to maximise issue the people will decide”, and then tell the prosperity for our country and all its people in future parliamentary representative democracy that its job is decades will be to get Brexit done on 31 October, as simply to implement what the people are saying, that the Prime Minister promises to do. is a denial of the whole concept of the responsibility 8.30 pm and integrity that has gone into our parliamentary system in the past. We should be very careful not to go Lord Judd (Lab): My Lords, I am very grateful to down the road of referenda ever again—but, having the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, because he has said that, I think that on this occasion there is no tellingly spelled out to me why I feel so strongly on the alternative. issues before us. Of course, they are not simply about Brexit; they are about a committed bunch of people I remain with this thought: whatever happens in determined to change this country into a deregulated this story, whatever the end of the road, a certain authoritarian state akin to something in south-east fundamental truth remains for Britain. It is the prototype Asia, unencumbered by all feelings of responsibility, of a nation dependent on its relationships to the nationally or internationally, to hold them back. That world. How on earth does the vindictive wartime is a ruthless economic model, and that is why a stand rhetoric that we are getting from the Government help at this juncture is crucial. us to build relationships with the world? How does it A great deal has been said about Ireland in this lead the country to understand its interdependence debate. I have watched the affairs of Northern Ireland with the world and the fact that our future stability and touched on them to some extent in past ministerial and prosperity in every sense depend on us being experience with great interest. The Good Fridayagreement positive players together with people across the world, was not the end of the story. It was not a settlement. It starting with our European neighbours, as a way of was an opportunity for Northern Ireland to rebuild ensuring the well-being of our children? itself as a different kind of society, free of violence. I I find this a tragedy. Everything is going into a take my hat off to the countless people in Northern negative, psychologically manifest, insecure approach, Ireland who have worked for that. It is not just the which is saying, “Oh, the world is a threat. Europe is a people who hit the headlines; it is all the people at threat. There are opponents; we must defeat them”. local and community level who have been steadily That has no place in any sensible sense of responsibility transforming the whole nature of Northern Ireland. to our children. That is why the issues of Northern Ireland are crucial and central to our responsibilities. What has 8.37 pm been very important in the change in Northern Ireland Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con): My Lords, I am has been the sense of equivalence. Instead of having glad to have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, all the British traditions, the minority was supported and I thought for one brief moment that I was going by the concept of the European Charter, which spells to actually agree with him on something, because he out the rights that were so important to all the community. said he had growing reservations about our unwritten Of course, we decided not to endorse the charter for constitution—but then that took him off to saying the future.That means that we have a double responsibility there should be a second referendum. I do not quite now to make sure that we get it right. follow that one. 1755 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1756

[LORD HAMILTON OF EPSOM] could not prorogue Parliament actually resulted in? I will talk about the judgment of the Supreme We have sat for another eight days while we go over all Court and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, the old ground. One of the reasons we are where we which is remarkable on two counts. The first is that it are now is that Parliament is incapable of reaching any was unanimous. All 11 judges on the Supreme Court conclusion on what it should actually do about leaving reached the same conclusion, when we all know that the EU. Have we advanced any further by the fact that the judiciary is totally divided on this issue. Does this we have sat for longer? No, we have not. Have the not raise slight questions in people’s minds as to how Government been held to account? Well, on the margin, they came to a unanimous conclusion when the previous I suppose. Has it really made any difference to anything? court, the Divisional Court, had voted the other way? No, it has not—for the simple reason that nothing is They overturned the verdict of the Lord Chief Justice actually going to happen until the EU Council meets of England and Wales and the Master of the Rolls. on 17-18 October. After that, of course, it will be Was it not rather strange that they should reach a decided whether the proposals we have put forward unanimous verdict when so many other very distinguished are acceptable, whether there is a deal to be put to judges across the country had decided the other way? Parliament and so forth. It is after the Queen’s Speech that the Government will have to be held to account, Lord McNally: What is the noble Lord implying? and very little has been achieved by Parliament sitting He should not just put a question mark up. The clue as over all these extra days. to why there is a difference is in the name “Supreme The real problem is that if the Supreme Court says, Court”. Why does the noble Lord think all 11 came to “We’re going to get into the business of not just the same conclusion? By raising it, he is implying that interpreting but actually making the law, and we’re there must have been some collusion or malfunction. going to make political decisions when we do that”, as Why ask the question without giving us an answer? sure as night follows day, Parliament will say, “If the judges are going to make these political decisions, they Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Because I do not know must be appointed by Parliament”. That is what will what went on in the previous discussions of the Supreme happen if we go on down this road. What will happen? Court; I was not there. All I am saying is that it is very A Select Committee in the House of Commons will strange that the conclusion the court came to was interview candidates for the Supreme Court. It will completely unanimous. This is very odd. ask them about their political views: which way they voted in the last election, what their views are on Lord Goldsmith: Perhaps I could help the noble social matters such as— Lord. The Supreme Court judges said they were all of the opinion that parliamentary sovereignty was what was at stake. As they made very clear, they were not Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords— taking a decision for or against Brexit. They were talking simply about the role of Parliament, and how wrong it therefore was for the Prime Minister to stop Lord Hamilton of Epsom: No, I am not going to Parliament sitting. I do not see any difficulty at all in give way any more. I have given way endless times, and seeing why they all took that opinion. I entirely agree it does not seem to be taken into account when I am with the noble Lord, Lord McNally.Tosuggest something gone after. improper about our Supreme Court, as the noble Lord That is what will happen. They will be asked about was, is absolutely inconsistent with the rule of law and all these things, and we will move over to an American the role we should take. system whereby when there is a Conservative Administration a lot of conservative judges will be Lord Hamilton of Epsom: The noble and learned appointed, and when there is a Labour Administration Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is putting words in my mouth. a lot of socialists will be appointed. Is that what we I did not say anything improper. I just said that, want? No, it certainly is not. We do not admire the considering the judiciary is completely divided on this American system of having politicised judges and a issue, it was remarkable that all 11 members of the politicised Supreme Court. It would be a very retrograde Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. The step. issue at heart was whether the business of proroguing I am not taking any notice of my noble friend on Parliament was judiciary. The previous court had said the Front Bench. I have had so many interventions it was not judiciary and the Supreme Court said it was. that I will have to speak a little longer. We are between What has actually happened— a rock and a hard place. If we have a written constitution, we will have to completely review the role of the Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Will the noble Lord Commons versus the Lords and the relative powers of give way? the two Chambers. Wewill have to look at the Commons versus the Executive and the role of the Speaker. We Lord Hamilton of Epsom: No. I have given way to will have to look at the judiciary as well. I was rather so many people, and we are always being told that we hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would reach cannot go beyond six minutes. the conclusion that we should move from an unwritten As everybody will know,the judgment of the Supreme constitution to a written one. That is the only way that Court alluded to the fact that a number of judgments we will save the institutions of this country. Too many had been made that had political connotations. This people are trying to push the boundaries of a system is a step much further: the Supreme Court making that has built up over the years and we are now a political decision. What has the judgment that we moving into very dangerous territory indeed. 1757 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1758

8.45 pm confidence of the House of Commons resign and call an election. I should add here that I am still not The Duke of Wellington (Non-Afl): My Lords, I persuaded of the merits of a second referendum. declare, as always, my European interests as detailed in the register. This is the first opportunity I have had Even if the Prime Minister secures a deal at the next to speak in this Chamber since I resigned the Conservative European Council, I fear that an extension might still Whip on 4 September, and I feel I ought to explain be necessary to enable the parliamentary procedures why I did so. here and the ratification by the European Parliament in Strasbourg to take place. I am glad that Parliament When the Prime Minister advised the early prorogation is sitting this week and that we are having this debate of Parliament, I felt, in the words of the noble Lord, today. Lord Young of Cookham, We should all hope that the Prime Minister, with “unhappy at the timing and length of the prorogation and its his clear determination, is indeed able to negotiate a motivation”, new deal. But should he fail, there is no doubt that we and, must seek an extension. I wish him well in the negotiations “unpersuaded by the reasons given”. and I hope, with limited conviction, that he can achieve A few days later, the Commons voted to allow the a new deal. so-called Benn Bill—which requires the Prime Minister to request an extension in the absence of a deal—to be debated. I know I would have voted with the 8.50 pm 21 Conservatives who supported the Motion and enabled Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we are now in it to pass. Those 21 had the Whip removed and were the endgame of Brexit: less than four weeks to go, a expelled from the parliamentary party. As a result, I choice between crashing out, staying in or some sort felt that the only honourable course open to me was to of ingenious or fantastical deal over the Irish border. resign the Whip in this House. The Lords, we all accept, is a revising Chamber. We As we all know, the Prorogation was subsequently look at the detail of what the Government propose declared unlawful by 11 to zero by the Supreme Court. and whether it is workable. Some noble Lords have How unfortunate that it was a Conservative Prime spoken of the referendum three years ago giving Minister who should have acted in this way and broken “instructions” from the British people to Parliament, a convention of this nature that had lasted for so long. but those instructions did not go into any detail. They did not tell us whether “the people”wanted to maintain The ultras and certain newspapers regularly accuse co-operation between police forces and exchanges of those who do not wish to leave without a deal, or who data on crime and terrorism, and they did not tell us try to prevent the country leaving without one, of not whether the UK should stay in the European space accepting the result of the referendum. This is simply programme or the Joint European Torus on fusion not true, and I must repeat what I have said many research. times before. In the referendum I voted to remain. I Boris Johnson spoke this morning of the JET Culham much regret that by a small percentage the country research campus as a British asset, but there is a voted to leave. In their 2017 general election manifestos reason it is called the Joint European Torus, and it is both major parties committed to honour the result of not clear yet whether we are planning to shoulder its the referendum. Since then, I have been of the opinion full cost and staffing ourselves. It is in the Henley that, regrettably, we must now leave the European constituency and it has a European school. He was Union. However, it would not be in the national deliberately misleading his audience. interest to leave without a deal, with all the serious consequences this would have for the economy, for The Prime Minister, we know, is not a details man. small businesses, for farmers, for the supply of medicines, He showed his eccentric and limited grasp of the for security, for investment and for the union. The list details of trade policy in a speech in New York last goes on. week, which I happened to catch on television. In it he took as his prime examples of UK exports that would I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will be able benefit from deregulated access to the US market four to negotiate a deal in the next two weeks and get it items: socks, cauliflower, haggis and lamb. The Minister agreed by the European Council and by Parliament. must be familiar with the research behind this statement. Should he be unable to do so, he must by law and in Can he therefore tell us what proportion of UK exports the national interest seek a further delay, frustrating is currently composed of cauliflowers, what scale of and disappointing as that might be. We cannot and expansion in domestic cauliflower production is envisaged, must not leave without a deal. and how easy it will be to supply cauliflowers to Once a delay has been secured, if that is necessary, California while they are still fresh? I had understood it would surely be expedient to have a general election. that the UK was at present a net importer of cauliflowers If the current House of Commons is unable to support and that it produces them for only one month a year. Mrs May’s deal—which I would have voted for, and I However, the Prime Minister must understand the would vote for any new deal brought to this House—and sector much better than I do, since he placed more as the Government no longer have a majority in the emphasis on that than on high technology, the creative Commons, we must have a general election. Then it industries or services. will probably be desirable for the next Parliament, In his update last week, the Prime Minister accused however it is made up, to repeal the Fixed-term Parliament of living in a fantasy world. I see Mr Johnson Parliaments Act. For centuries it has been more than a and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, as living in an convention that a Government who do not have the alternative universe. They and their allies told us three 1759 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1760

[LORD WALLACE OF SALTAIRE] Minister is whipping up the populist theme of the years ago that negotiations with the EU would be people against—I assume, an allegedly corrupt— quick and easy. They also said that the eurozone was Parliament. That is very dangerous for British democracy. about to collapse, that staying within the EU would Democracies can die if political leaders cease to defend leave us “shackled to a corpse”, and that the EU was a their principles. Democracy is not just about voting “superstate” over which we had no influence. but about the rule of law, respect for an ordered Now Dominic Cummings says that leaving without political process, freedom of speech, the toleration of a deal will be “a walk in the park”. Mr Johnson says, dissent, and limits on and careful legislative scrutiny “Let’s get it finished”, as though there will be nothing of executive power. more to negotiate after 31 October and no more When the Attorney-General declares, “This is a financial contributions to shared European programmes. dead Parliament”; when the Daily Mail declares that Several speeches in this debate have clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent judgment saw democracy Britain’s future relationship with the EU remains to be begin to die, as it did the other day; and when the negotiated, in principle and in detail. At best, we Prime Minister describes an Act of Parliament as the will find ourselves a second and poorer Switzerland; “surrender Act”, we are drifting on to very dangerous at worst, an offshore island like the Irish Free State ground. 50 years ago. The Minister may remember the Queen’s Speech of I listened to the Prime Minister’s conference speech two years ago, which set out an ambitious legislative this morning. He has a wonderful sense of comic agenda to prepare for an orderly Brexit. Of the list of timing—he would have had a successful career as a Bills then produced, the taxation Bill passed, as did stand-up comedian. However, he wears his principles the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the Sanctions and lightly and he happily propounds contradictory statements Anti-Money Laundering Bill. The Trade Bill has gone one after another. His best comic line was entirely through both Houses and is waiting for ping-pong. nonsensical, and I think that I ought to quote it: The immigration, Fisheries and Agriculture Bills are “When the chlorinated chickens waddle from the hencoop still waiting for Commons Report stage. As Jacob where they are hiding, that is the vision of the country that we will Rees-Mogg admitted in the Commons last week, fear put to the people”. of amendment has led to government delay. I am sure that that is entirely clear to all noble Lords This means that—although the Minister may try to present. For me, the worst contradiction was between assure us that the necessary legislative framework will his declaration—“I love Europe”—and his use of the be in place for the UK to leave on 31 October—that language of war to describe our relations with the can happen only if the Government are given Henry VIII continent. powers to put through a very large number of statutory After the referendum in 2016, Boris Johnson wrote instruments to allow them to push a massive legislative a column for the Daily Telegraph that claimed that programme through in two weeks; otherwise, we will Britain would remain in the EU single market after not be ready and will need to extend. Brexit. Reportedly, that was one reason that Michael This week, the Mail on Sunday headlined allegations Gove decided that, as he then declared, from “a senior Number 10 source”—in other words, “I have come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that Boris cannot close to the Prime Minister—that: provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead”. “The Government is working on extensive investigations into Gove was right then, as was Johnson, but both changed Dominic Grieve,Oliver Letwin and Hilary Benn and their involvement their minds. with foreign powers and the funding of their activities. … The We have heard some of the wilder interpretations of drafting of … legislation in collusion with foreign powers must be our difficulties with Brexit in this debate, which remind fully investigated”. me of the overlap between Brexit believers, climate Later in the article, Philip Hammond’s name was change deniers and other conspiracy theorists. The added to this list of potential traitors. Number 10 noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord James—I do not thinks that three recent Conservative Cabinet Ministers see the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, in his place at the have now gone over to the enemy. moment—clearly see the EU as an evil empire, although The hostile foreign power with which the Prime the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, prefers to define it as the Minister’s Office alleged that they were colluding was Soviet Union rather than the usual depiction of it as not Russia or China but France, an ally of the UK for the German Empire. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, more than 100 years. The Prime Minister’s frequent ascribes the lack of progress with Brexit to “scheming references to “our friends in Europe”presumably includes and plotting”—by,I assume, malign forces in Parliament the French. But refighting the Second World War, for and elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of this pocket Churchill, makes him contradict the whole Epsom, even suspects a deep judicial plot. idea of friendship with our neighbours across the As several noble Lords have said, we are also straining channel, through references to “surrender”, “traitors”, Britain’s constitutional settlement. On the “Today” “betrayal”, even “the Dunkirk spirit” as the war is programme this morning, the Conservative Party endlessly replayed. chairman, James Cleverly, said: We know that the Prime Minister likes to compare “There is little point in electing representatives unless we listen himself to Churchill. The press increasingly compares to them”. him to Trump: constantly campaigning rather than I cheered up immensely. However, he was actually governing, dividing the country while talking of uniting referring to the DUP and not the UK Parliament. As it. Watching the Prime Minister’supdate to the Commons far as the UK Parliament is concerned, the Prime last Wednesday, I thought more of the comparison 1761 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1762 with Viktor Orban, the authoritarian Prime Minister there is a limit to a Prime Minister’s authority—which of Hungary, who has coined the phrase “illiberal is particularly important at the moment, when Cabinet democracy”, by which he means democracy in name fails to restrain a Prime Minister, knowing nothing only, without the rule of law and without independent either of that application for Prorogation or indeed of media. Like Boris Johnson, he started off as a social the publication of today’s proposals. liberal. I even shared a platform with him at a conference I will say one other thing to the noble Lord. When in 1997 when he was seen to be one of the rising liberal people do not like the outcome of a court case and modernisers in eastern Europe. But then he discovered start challenging the judges, it is a serious and dangerous that appealing to nationalist resentments, attacking matter, especially for a parliamentarian. It is we, above the European Union, sneering at intellectuals and everyone else, who should reflect on and respect the demonising immigrants whipped up public emotions separation of powers. and consolidated his hold on power. The Minister has some major questions to answer On the Conservative Benches behind the Prime this evening. I urge him not to bluster or blag, because Minister last Wednesday, Brexiter MPs were attacking we are at too serious a time. First, to repeat the central the “liberal establishment” as the core of the alleged question posed by my noble and learned friend Lord parliamentary plot to thwart the will of the people. Goldsmith, we need to know whether the Government The liberal establishment, as I understand it, includes abide by the law—not just in general, but a specific the mainstream media—except the Telegraph, the Mail law, the Benn Act. No ifs, no buts, no fingers crossed, and the Express, but including above all, the BBC, of he said, no early “please reject our request” or parallel course—as well as experts of all kinds, the universities letters. The Benn Act, as we have heard, does not and the academic class, the churches, the judges and reject no deal but simply says, much as the withdrawal the Civil Service. That covers most of us present in this Act requires a deal to be agreed by the Commons, that Chamber; it includes people who think, who have no deal must be approved by the Commons, or else, if respect for evidence and who believe in reasoned debate. there is no agreed deal, an extension must be sought. The populist right, which has taken over the Conservative As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, that Party, defines itself against this as the illiberal anti- is in the national interest, as well as in accordance with establishment, speaking for the people against the the law. elite. Noble Lords need only look at Jacob Rees-Mogg or Boris Johnson himself to see how ludicrous their Can we avoid any nonsense about there being defects claim to represent the people against the elite is. in the Act? It was passed through both Houses, which is when Ministers should have engaged to resolve any I can think of two earlier instances of the Tory shortcomings, if they thought there were any, because party losing its mind. The first was in 1687-88, when it was quite obvious at the time that it was going to Tories supported the King against Parliament and become the law of the land. patriots such as General John Churchill appealed to a foreign power—the Dutch—to invade Britain in what We should heed the wise advice of the noble Lord, we now remember as the Glorious Revolution. The Lord Butler, that, even if these new proposals are the Tories at that point were supported, politically and basis for an agreement, it will not be possible by 19 or financially, by the authoritarian French. The second indeed 31 October. To take the Prime Minister at his instance was in 1913-14 over Ireland, when Tory politicians words, today’s proposals are the “broad landing zone” fanned the flames in Ulster, coming close to promoting in which a deal can begin to take shape. They are civil war against the elected Government in Westminster. probably the basis of a deal, but not by 31 October. We were saved from that threat of civil conflict by the Anyway, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, suggested, disastrous outbreak of the First World War. We have that particular date is hardly sacrosanct, other than in to hope that this third bout of madness will not lead to the Prime Minister’s rhetoric. As the noble Baroness, another such political, economic and constitutional Lady Altman, said, even Brexiteers never dreamed it disaster. We appeal to those reasonable Conservatives— was going to be 31 October on a no-deal basis. followers of the one-nation tradition, from Disraeli to So we must be clear that we will need the extension Macmillan to Cameron—to help us return British allowed for in the law of the land, as Parliament has politics from right-wing populism to reasoned debate. decided, if it is not possible to have a deal by the end of this month. Will the Government clearly state that they will obey the Benn Act? 9.03 pm Secondly, to help the Commons decide whether to Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): My Lords, accept no deal, to help Parliament debate the issue, my noble friend Lord Whitty confessed that he is and to help the public understand its implications, the going to weep on 31 October if we leave then. For Minister needs to spell out the remaining costs and myself, I have booked to see “Dracula”, the ballet, risks, after all possible mitigation, of a no-deal exit. that night, which somehow seemed rather appropriate. What do the Government estimate it will cost UK plc, I am afraid I have to respond to the noble Lord, and particularly the UK citizens most immediately Lord Hamilton—and it is not just because I am wearing affected, either those living elsewhere in the EU or in the Lady Hale tribute brooch. He asked what we have Gibraltar? Given that either the EU Council or the achieved by sitting for the extra days. The first thing is European Parliament might not agree to these proposals, that we are able to be here today to discuss the we have to continue to ensure that we do not leave proposals, which are incredibly important to this country, without a deal. And we need to see the updated that were published at 3 o’clock this afternoon. The Yellowhammer assessment and the Black Swan papers second outcome of that hearing is that it shows that mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace 1763 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1764

[BARONESS HAYTER OF KENTISH TOWN] at reconciliation. Instead, the Prime Minister unlawfully of Tankerness, and by my noble friend Lord Haskel. prorogued Parliament for five weeks to stop us asking As my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith said, questions; he calls an Act of Parliament, which simply we need full, honest and frank advice about the demands Commons approval for no deal or else more consequences of no deal. negotiating time, a “surrender Act”; and the Attorney- Thirdly, and crucially, on the “most sensitive land General labels Parliament, border in Europe”, in the words of the noble Lord, “as dead as dead can be”,—[Official Report, Commons; 25/9/19; Lord Birt, will the Minister explain how the new col. 666.] proposals respect the December 2017 commitment—a with no moral right to sit. Who is this tribune of the commitment made, as my noble friend Lord Liddle people, from the party that introduced the Fixed-term reminded us, while Mr Johnson was in the Cabinet, Parliaments Act, to decide that he should decide when and therefore party to the commitment? It was, as we we have an election and undo the very Act that he know, to “no physical infrastructure or related checks sought, and helped, to pass? or controls” within Ireland—but we now read that I am afraid it was only this evening that I learned Mr Johnson is proposing that there will be checks. from the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, that the full Indeed, in some ways it will be an effective double Cabinet had not even seen or endorsed today’s letter hard border, with checks on both sides of the frontier— to the European Union. So where has Cabinet government albeit a few miles away, presumably to honour his gone now? Meanwhile, hearing the Prime Minister commitment—for any goods travelling between the today, and watching him on television, comparing north and the south. Parliament to a failing school and a reality TV show—the The paper that we have seen today allows for regulatory Parliament to which he is accountable and to which he alliance between the north and the south of Ireland to owes his position—made me doubt his attachment to avoid a hard border, but that means there will be our proud history of parliamentary democracy. regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and The Prime Minister, who should have the country’s Great Britain—“a border up the Irish Sea”, in the interests at heart, delayed revealing his Brexit plan words of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. It also means until just after his party conference—putting internal that there will be a customs border in regard to tariffs party management above the right of Parliament to across the Northern Ireland/Irish frontier. There will scrutinise, above the need to debate and consider a have to be customs declarations and collections. The fundamental issue, vital to the country’s future: the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said that that would be done terms on which we leave the European Union and our easily on computers in the exporting factories. That future trading and security relationship with the EU 27. might work for large regular exporters or importers, That is a shameful disregard for the national interest. but not for one-off or irregular traders, nor indeed It was exactly 34 years ago yesterday that my noble those having to complete complicated rules-of-origin friend Lord Kinnock was brave enough to take on his declarations on what they produce. So the paper, as we party and say: have looked at it today—in haste, it is true—appears “You can’t play politics with people’s jobs and with people’s neither credible nor workable, and nor does it respect services and with their homes”. the undertaking to all-Ireland economic activity of no It is time for the party opposite to look beyond the new checks and no Northern Ireland/Great Britain border. ERG, the single-issue Brexiteers and those whose own Furthermore, there remains the question that the jobs and services and homes are not threatened by a Minister failed to answer when I posed it last Wednesday: no-deal exit, and to put the nation first. But for this what about free movement of people after we leave the evening, we simply need clear answers to some single market? Once we have different immigration straightforward questions that my noble and learned rules, I assume that the idea is not to allow those who friend, I and other noble Lords have posed. The will not have enough points—we have heard that we House deserves nothing less. are going to have a points system—simply to bypass our border checks by flying in to Dublin and then 9.16 pm driving across to Belfast or perhaps Holyhead, or Lord Callanan: My Lords, once again this has been indeed direct from Dublin to Swansea. So would there an extremely wide-ranging debate and it has given us be border checks between Northern and southern the opportunity to take account of the significant Ireland, maybe on trains, at the airports or on the recent developments in the EU exit process. That is Cork ferry, to enforce the different rules either side of very much in keeping with this House’s overall record the border? of providing considered and insightful contributions Perhaps the Government are considering something throughout the process of the UK leaving the EU. Of completely different: compulsory ID, so that effectively course, I have listened to the debate carefully and I checks are in-country rather than at the borders. These recognise that many noble Lords have alternative views, are vital questions to which we need answers. We need to put it mildly, on what this Government should be to know how these rather vague concepts will work, doing. Nevertheless, our commitment to delivering on and that should be spelled out to the House. I have to the outcome of the 2016 referendum and the instruction say that, if we trusted the Government rather more, of 17.4 million UK citizens has not waivered. I agree these might be requests for information rather than once again with my noble friend Lady Meyer when she demands—but that trust has rather gone. says that it is time to move on and get Brexit done. As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said, the country Let me do my best to address as many of the key is more divided than he has ever seen it; yet, as the points arising from the debate as I can in my closing noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, there has been no attempt remarks. A number of noble Lords, including the 1765 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1766 noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked about the continuing Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: Can the noble negotiations and the proposals that we have shared Lord explain what would happen if I, as a consumer, today.The Government are clear that our focus remains buy something and then travel to the other part of on getting a deal at the October European Council Ireland? Who will check the goods that I bought in and leaving on 31 October. Let me reiterate to noble one place and then took across the border? Lords,including the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, that substantial discussions around possible approaches Lord Callanan: Wewill discuss many of these proposals to securing a deal are ongoing and that, in our view, in detail tomorrow. we have made good progress in these discussions. We will continue to work closely with the EU to achieve a Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, I thank deal so that we can leave on 31 October under an the Minister for giving way. I have now had the agreed framework. Let me say to the noble Baroness, opportunitytolookatthedocumententitled“Explanatory Lady Smith of Newnham, that I have no doubt that Note”. On page 6, in paragraph b, it says that: my noble friend the Chief Whip and his colleagues in the usual channels want to agree a way forward, to “Physical checks—which would continue to be required only on a very small proportion of movements based on risk-assessment— give us sufficient time to debate any legislation that could then take place at traders’ premises or other designated has been agreed by the House of Commons. I say to locations which could be located anywhere in Ireland or Northern the noble Baroness that for her, as a Liberal Democrat, Ireland”. to start her speech by saying she wants to speak about If these checks are to take place in Ireland, surely that democracy was one of the many ironies of this debate. will require the co-operation of the Irish Government. That was a bit rich, given that the Liberal Democrats want to overturn the biggest democratic exercise we have ever had in this country. Lord Callanan: Of course it will require the co-operation of the Irish Government. We want to discuss with As I noted earlier, we have shared with the EU the them and the EU how we can address the unique proposals that were made public shortly before the situation of the circumstances in Ireland to bring debate began. We have begun to engage with the EU about our exit from the European Union without on those proposals and, so far, the reaction seems to imposing border infrastructure. That is what we want be fairly positive. I know that noble Lords, including to achieve. We recognise that it is a unique and unusual the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked me whether this is circumstance.Indeed, we expect that the Irish Government a take it or leave it proposal. Clearly, we hope that will also wish to ensure that there is no infrastructure Brussels will work with us over the next 10 days. If on their side either. they do, then we will leave with a new deal. If they do not want to talk on the basis of these proposals then, Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Since the Leader of the as I have said, we are prepared to leave without a deal. House is here, we repeat strongly the request to have The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to doublespeak sufficient time for this tomorrow, rather than having a in politics, which helpfully reminded me of my favourite Statement with 20 minutes for questions. This is clearly moment in the whole of the European Parliament important, and we will need much more time. election campaign, when he told us that Labour respects the result of the referendum—and then immediately Lord Callanan: The Chief Whip is not here, but the spent the rest of the campaign campaigning against it. Leader of the House has heard the noble Lord’s If that was not doublespeak, I do not know what was. comments. I am sure the usual channels will want to The noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Campbell, discuss how much time is available. asked for further information on the proposals. We will have an opportunity to discuss these tomorrow Lord Davies of Stamford: I thank the Minister for but let me give a further brief summation for noble giving way. Is not the document presented to the Lords. Many noble Lords asked how they are reconciled Commission today thoroughly disingenuous? It refers with Section 10(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) to an open border. That is of course the position in Act 2018. I assure the House that our proposals do Ireland today. If there were an open border, there not breach that section because they avoid checks, would be no need for customs controls or checks of controls and physical infrastructure at the border. any kind, yet the Minister has just referred to the need to have those. I know that noble Lords have questions about what the proposals mean for that infrastructure. Under no circumstances would we put in place infrastructure, Lord Callanan: The situation is changing; that is checks or controls at the border. We are proposing why we need to agree new arrangements. We are that all the customs processes needed to ensure compliance leaving the European Union, the customs union and with UK and EU customs regimes should take place the single market, so clearly the arrangements will not on a decentralised basis, with paperwork being conducted be able to stay exactly as they are at the moment when electronically as goods move between the two countries, we are part of those institutions. These proposals will and with the very small number of physical checks allow us to move forward and focus on the positive needed being conducted at traders’ premises or at future relationship that I believe is in all of our interests. other points in the supply chain. We hope that these I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord proposals will now provide the basis for rapid negotiations Empey, as he knows; he always makes insightful towards a solution, together with the finalisation of contributions in this House. He raised some important necessary changes— questions that I want to answer. We recognise that, for 1767 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1768

[LORD CALLANAN] Lord Callanan: My noble friend knows what the reasons of geography and economics, some things Government will do in the circumstances. We will such as agri-food are increasingly managed on a common obey the law, and we will obey the Benn Act, which is basis across the island of Ireland. Regulatory checks the law. already take place on some goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. While the proposals Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: Some reference would see an increase in some of these, there would be was made to it being a Private Member’s Bill. Some of no need for traders to submit customs declarations us will remember Sydney Silverman’s Bill to get rid of and we would go ahead only with the consent of the the death penalty or the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. In light of Steel, on abortion. They were Private Members’ Bills. this progress, we must take the route suggested by my Is the Minister saying that the origin of a Bill means noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford and choose to that the Government may not have to agree with it? It continue to work together in a positive spirit. In that is an Act of Parliament. Surely the Benn Act, just like way, we will ensure the best possible outcome for the any other Act, must be obeyed by the Government. UK, so that we deliver on the instructions given to us by the British people. Lord Callanan: We will obey the law, as I have said on a number of occasions. The Benn Act is the law; we The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the will obey the law. noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, asked about the Benn Act. The noble Lord Butler of Brockwell: I just ask a simple question. Baroness, Lady Hayter, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace In those circumstances, will the Government write a of Saltaire, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard referred letter seeking an extension? to it as the “surrender Act”. Lord Callanan: The Government will obey the law. Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: It was the sovereignty Act. Noble Lords: Oh! Lord Callanan: I am not going to take any more Lord Callanan: That is the political game as we all interventions on this. I do not wish to go any further. attach different names to it. The noble and learned Noble Lords will draw the political conclusions they Lord, Lord Goldsmith, also speculated on the use of wish to from the answers that I have given, but that is the Civil Contingencies Act in relation to the extension. the Government’s position and I am not going any I assure the noble and learned Lord that there are no further than the answer that I have given. plans to use the Civil Contingencies Act in a no-deal No-deal preparations were raised by many noble scenario. I point noble Lords to the words of the Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Prime Minister on contingency powers. He said that, Goldsmith, my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble “what we want to do is get a deal and there is no purpose in Lord, Lord Monks. Noble Lords will understand that discussing the hypothetical scenario”, the Government’s position is that, if it is not possible around the Benn Act. Let me be clear and reiterate to to reach a deal, we will have to leave on 31 October all noble Lords, as I have said a number of times on with no deal. We are committed to preparing for that this subject: we will of course obey the law. outcome. As I said at the opening of this debate, we are ramping up the preparations. All necessary funding Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Let me pick up this will be made available, and we will make all the point. He said that of course we will obey the law. If necessary preparations to ensure stability for citizens, the House of Commons has not agreed to a deal nor consumers, businesses and the economy. approved no deal by 19 October, does he accept that A number of noble Lords, including the noble the law—which he says he will obey—means that the Lord, Lord Wigley, will be pleased to know that the Prime Minister must seek an extension? Government continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations. With regard to the question from the Lord Callanan: I am not going to get into providing noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, we are committed interpretations of an Act that was not government to managing the policing implications of Brexit in the legislation, which we advised against and which we UK through a collective approach, notwithstanding said, in our view, had considerable deficiencies. These that policing is, of course, a devolved matter in Scotland. are matters for lawyers. It is ultimately for the courts I have participated in many meetings with the devolved to determine what the Act says and requires, so I will Governments of Scotland and Wales, and with the go no further, no matter how many times people Northern Ireland Civil Service, where precisely these intervene on me, than saying that we are going to matters have been discussed. abide by the law. Noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Monks, Lord Cormack: The fact is it is an Act of Parliament. asked about Operation Yellowhammer. Departments I have a Question on the Order Paper tomorrow. Can have identified a range of measures to mitigate the my noble friend assure me that he will give me a clear, potential impacts of a challenging no-deal exit, some unequivocal Answer to that Question? Parliament has of which involve the use of existing regulations the right to know what the Government are going and powers. Such activities are not uncommon in to do in the circumstances to which I referred in my challenging situations, but, as I said, the Government speech and to which the noble and learned Lord, have no intention of using the Civil Contingencies Act Lord Wallace of Tankerness, just referred. for Operation Yellowhammer. To answer the question 1769 Brexit [2 OCTOBER 2019] Brexit 1770 posed by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, extensive work Ireland if the Government get their way? In that case, to prepare for all scenarios has been under way for is it not still an important position for Ministers to more than two years on food supply chains. The attend? Government have well-established ways of working with the food industry on food supply chain issues and Lord Callanan: If there are significant matters—of we are using these to support preparations for leaving course we are still currently a member of the EU—then the EU. we are attending meetings, but not all EU meetings are Noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to do with legislation. A lot of them are to discuss raised the vital issue of citizens’ rights. I reiterate to things that might happen, some of which could possibly the House this Government’s unwavering commitment impact on Northern Ireland, so we review which meetings to protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK and we are attending on a weekly basis. I would of course UK nationals living in the EU. EU citizens make an be happy to meet the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to invaluable cultural and economic impact on the UK discuss this further. and we thank them for their patience and contribution In concluding this debate, I remind your Lordships to our society. Our focus now is on securing reciprocal that it has been three years since the British people assurances from our European counterparts—guarantees voted in the referendum to instruct the Government to that supplement existing member state commitments leave the European Union. A number of noble Lords—the and the steps we have already taken to protect the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord McNally, Lord Taverne, rights of UK nationals. Lord Heseltine and Lord Livermore—spoke of having As part of securing reciprocity, I can assure the a second people’s vote. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Earl, of Greetland, even questioned the continued validity Lord Clancarty, that we have legislated for the EU of the 2016 referendum. I remind noble Lords again of settlement scheme through the Immigration Act 1971. the Government’s position that more British people Indeed, as of August 2019, 117,300 Portuguese citizens voted in the 2016 referendum than for any other have applied for the scheme, which will protect their course of action in British electoral history.The message rights in all scenarios—approximately half of the from voters in that referendum and the subsequent Portuguese citizens living in the UK. To reassure the general election was clear; we cannot continue to noble Viscount, my right honourable friend the Brexit second-guess such a clear instruction and we will Secretary spoke with the Portuguese Minister of Foreign never support another referendum. Affairs last month to highlight the steps we are taking to protect EU citizens and called for reciprocal protections Baroness Altmann: I put on the record that the for UK nationals in Portugal. This builds on the rights Minister is not quite right. More people voted in the we have already secured. In June I also signed a voting 1992 general election than in the EU referendum. rights treaty with Portugal in Lisbon that means that UK nationals living in Portugal and Portuguese citizens living in the UK can continue to participate in local Lord Callanan: I will check the figures; I am not elections. sure that the noble Baroness is correct on that. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about family I have laid out the ways in which the Government reunification for refugees. I can tell him that refugees are working to deliver on that instruction and the way from the EU would be entitled to apply via the settlement in which we are prepared for multiple outcomes. Today scheme and have family rights as part of that in line we have presented to Parliament and to the public our with other EU citizens. The status of non-EU refugees new proposals on Northern Ireland and Ireland. As I does not change as a result of Brexit. said earlier, I hope that these proposals can provide the basis of a rapid negotiation towards a deal, which The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, whom I welcome to is what we want. This will then allow us to focus on a his new post as chair of the EU Committee, asked positive future relationship that is in all our best about the impact on the EU Committee’s scrutiny interests. process of the Government’s policy of attending EU meetings only where the UK still has significant interest. This Government are looking to the future beyond This policy has already been effective in unshackling our withdrawal from the European Union. We are officials from meetings that are no longer relevant to looking ahead to work on the NHS, violent crime and the UK to focus on our national priorities. As I made cutting the cost of living. As the Prime Minister said clear in my recent letter to him, the Government will in his Statement in the other place last week, and as he continue to meet their commitments to facilitate the repeated in his speech this morning, what the British scrutiny process, including preparing EMs and updating public want from the Government is for us to respect the committee on the progress of files under scrutiny. the outcome of the referendum in which they gave a We have also committed to sharing information on clear instruction to deliver a withdrawal from the which meetings the UK will attend. Of course, I would European Union and for the Government to move on be very happy to meet with him to discuss this further. and move forward.

Lord Anderson of Ipswich: Before the Minister sits Baroness Smith of Newnham: The Minister just down, may I thank him for the clarification he has suggested that current legislation would not have an given? He has not simply said that the Government impact on the United Kingdom, but if Northern will obey the law, which we have heard before. He said Ireland were to remain in the single market could two other things that were perhaps of significance: legislation that is going through not impact on Northern first, that the Government would obey the Benn Act, 1771 Brexit [LORDS] Brexit 1772

[LORD ANDERSON OF IPSWICH] Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Before my noble friend and, secondly, if I heard him right, that they would sits down, I think I made a speech earlier on. I just not use the Civil Contingencies Act to amend or wonder whether he has any comment on it. repeal the Benn Act. Can he confirm that no regulation- making power, whether in the Civil Contingencies Lord Callanan: There were 51 noble Lords who Act, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 or spoke in the debate. I made an extensive set of notes any other Act of Parliament, will be used to amend or and endeavoured to respond to as many of the points repeal the clear provisions of the Benn Act? as possible. I will look again at my notes on the speech from the noble and learned Lord and reply to him in writing. I apologise for missing him out. Lord Callanan: I am afraid that this is becoming a bit tiresome. I do not want to go any further than what Motion agreed. I said in my speech. We are going to obey the law. The Benn Act is part of the law and we will obey it. House adjourned at 9.38 pm.