The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union
(Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con) My Lords, with the leave
of the House, I will repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question taken
a short while ago in another place. “We have been very
clear, right from the start of this process, that there will be a
vote in both Houses of Parliament on the final deal that we agree
with the European Union. I will reiterate the commitment that my
Minister gave...Request free trial
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union
(Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat the Answer
to an Urgent Question taken a short while ago in another place.
“We have been very clear, right from the start of this process,
that there will be a vote in both Houses of Parliament on the
final deal that we agree with the European Union. I will
reiterate the commitment that my Minister gave at this Dispatch
Box during the Article 50 Bill. He said:
‘I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a motion on
the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament
before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will
happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the
final agreement’.
Furthermore, he added that,
‘we intend that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal
arrangements but also the future relationship with the European
Union’.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 264.]
These remain our commitments.
The terms of that vote were also clear. Again, as my Minister
said at the time:
‘The choice will be meaningful: whether to accept that deal or to
move ahead without a deal’.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17;
col. 275.]
Of course, that vote cannot happen until there is a deal to vote
on, but we are working to reach an agreement on the final deal in
good time before we leave the European Union in March 2019.
Clearly, we cannot say for certain at this stage when that will
be agreed, but has said he hopes to
get a draft deal agreed by October 2018 and that is our aim as
well.
We fully expect that there will be a vote in the UK Parliament on
this agreement before the vote in the European Parliament and
before we leave the EU. As we have said, this vote will be over
and above the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and
Governance Act. We have also said many times that we want to move
to talking about the future relationship as soon as possible. The
EU has been clear that any future partnership cannot legally
conclude until the UK becomes a third country, as the Prime
Minister herself explained in her Florence speech.
As I set out in the committee yesterday, our aim is to have the
terms of our future relationship agreed by the time we leave in
March 2019. However, we recognise that the ratification of that
agreement will take time and that that could run into the
implementation period that we seek. There can be no doubt that
Parliament will be fully involved throughout this process”.
11.40 am
-
of Kentish Town
(Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement.
However, just as it took legislation to start the Article 50
process, so the outcome of two years’ negotiation must also
be authorised by legislation, as and others have
stressed, not by a vote in Parliament being mere motion. In
the Commons a few minutes ago the Secretary of State referred
to “in the event that we do not do the deal”. Let us be
clear: should that happen and our Government walk away, that
must also be subject to a vote, because no deal is actually a
decision. It is a decision that our future trade will be on
WTO terms, that we will be outside the customs union and that
there will be no transition period. Will the Minister very
gently advise her colleagues that in due course your
Lordships’ House is likely to be of the view that legislative
authority will be needed, deal or no deal?
-
My Lords, I always listen carefully to the noble Baroness,
Lady Hayter. I know she reflects carefully on the views of
Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I make it clear that
commitments given at the Dispatch Box by a member of the
Government are binding. Therefore, the commitment to ensure
that this House and another place have a meaningful vote, not
only on the terms of the withdrawal agreement but on the
implementation period agreement and the future relationship,
is binding on the Government and will remain so.
-
(CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that, during the
passage of the notification Bill in March, this House
approved an amendment that I moved to impose a statutory
requirement on the Government to ensure there is a meaningful
vote and parliamentary consideration of any withdrawal
agreement? This House backed down because of undertakings
given by the Government. In the light of the uncertainty
caused by the comments of the Secretary of State yesterday,
would it not be better for there to be a binding statutory
obligation to remove all doubt about this? Is it not right
that there is an appropriate parliamentary vehicle for such a
binding statutory obligation: the withdrawal Bill currently
before Parliament?
-
My Lords, I very much remember the contributions of the noble
Lord, , to our debates on
the Article 50 Act. As I just explained, a commitment given
by a Minister at the Dispatch Box is and remains binding. The
noble Lord refers to legislation that is currently in another
place and will proceed here. Clearly it is a matter for
discussions in that House to proceed, as they may do in
Committee and beyond, but the position is clear: there is no
confusion about the meaningful votes being offered. When my
right honourable friend the Secretary of State answered
questions on hypothetical issues of what happens in
negotiations in the European Union, he gave an accurate
answer. He made it clear that we expect to have an agreement
by October next year, because that is what the European Union
wants. It is what all of us need, so that not only we but
other members of the European Union can properly consider
their views on that agreement.
-
(LD)
My Lords, we are discovering that the assertion of taking
back control of parliamentary sovereignty at Westminster was
a myth in the mouth of the Brexiteers, but is it not right
that the final say must surely rest with the voters? As the
real facts about Brexit emerge, the public should have the
right to reflect and think again about whether Brexit suits
them. That would truly be respecting the will of the people.
A refusal to give the voters a final say would be deeply
undemocratic. Will the Government now pledge that they will
respect the voters and give the final say to the people?
-
We respect entirely that the democratic process means that in
a referendum people express their view. More than 1 million
more people voted to leave than to remain. We gave the
undertaking that we would respect the result of that
referendum and, as I gently reminded the noble Baroness the
other week, the fact is that the only major party to stand at
the last election on the basis of having a second referendum
suffered the penalty of almost total loss.
-
(Con)
My Lords, nobody can doubt the good intentions of my noble
friend. She has the respect of all parts of the House, but
will she accept that intentions and expectations are not
guarantees? We need a legislative guarantee that Parliament
will indeed take back control.
-
My Lords, our undertaking is indeed to give a guarantee that
Parliament will have a vote on the agreement that is reached;
not only on the withdrawal agreement but also, as I have
stressed, on any implementation phase and on our future
relationship. That is a very broad discussion for Parliament
to have and a very definitive decision that they can make.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister clear up something which seems
baffling, to me at any rate, from these exchanges, drawing on
her experiences as a former Chief Whip? If Parliament, either
this House or the other House, wants to have a vote, it is
within Parliament’s power to have a vote, whether the
Government want it to have one or not. It is very nice to
have government reassurances on these matters but as a matter
of parliamentary procedure, Governments might love the idea
of not having votes, particularly if Governments are not
secure in their majority, but the practical truth is that,
whatever these exchanges are, if the House of Commons wants
to vote on a major issue of constitutional importance, the
House of Commons is well within its power and capacity in
procedure to be able to do so.
-
My Lords, when I became Opposition Chief Whip I had the
pleasure of working with the noble Lord, who was then the
Government Chief Whip. He knew his procedure and rules then
and he is right now.
-
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend please clarify something? In
the event of no deal, were Parliament to reject that outcome,
what power would Parliament have to force the European Union
back to the negotiating table and/or to force the Government
to revoke the notice to leave the European Union?
-
My Lords, we are negotiating to stay in a relationship with
the European Union while leaving the institution. The
European Union is engaged with us in having very constructive
and very technical discussions behind the scenes. Both sides
are confident that we will reach a successful agreement and
therefore hypothecation and hypothesis are beyond my remit
today.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness please answer the question
that was put to her by her noble friend concerning the
outcome of a vote in Parliament not to accept the terms of
any deal negotiated by the Government to withdraw from the
European Union? It is a very simple question. She may not
have the answer, but if she does not have it, will she please
say so?
-
My Lords, the question has been asked before of Ministers in
both Houses, and the answer remains the same. We have
committed to give both Houses a meaningful vote on the
withdrawal agreement and we have now extended that to cover
an implementation period and our future relationship. That is
the undertaking: it has been made clear to the public as well
that we will honour the decision in the referendum but seek
the best agreement we can. That means that as we reach March
2019, we and, I hope, all those in this House will have done
our best to reach the right agreement and therefore any
discussion about how we then proceed will become irrelevant.
The vital thing as we prepare to leave is that if there is no
agreement, this Government will have made all due preparation
to be able to cope with that. That is what we have been
doing, as I have been explaining, over the last two months.
-
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that her answers are a bit
too long and do not allow enough people to get in on these
occasions, which are very important? Was she impressed two
days ago with the interesting comments of Mayor Bloomberg—a
very successful international businessman and ex-mayor of New
York—that the decision of the Government to leave the
European Union was as stupid as Donald Trump, the President
of the United States?
-
Noble Lords
Too long!
-
Will she now ask her colleagues to think again about these
matters, as the Government become more and more of a laughing
stock, and decide what to do in the real interests of this
country?
-
My Lords, Governments always listen to views. I am known for
never having called anybody’s views stupid. Even if I
disagree with them, I listen and reflect. That is what I have
always done and I shall always continue to do so.
|
